own?

[rampall]

is own a keyword?

i don't see it mentioned (COFFEE_KEYWORDS) except in the documentation example: for own key, value of object

[hen-x]

It's a contextual keyword, so it only has special meaning when it follows for and precedes another identifier. You can still use it as an identifier; you can even legally write for own own of own if you want to be confusing.

[rampall]

Ah thanks!

P.S for own own of own has quite a zen feel to it - i must admit

[dvv]

Please, consider the following: if own prop of obj then ... which could compile to if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(obj, prop)) {...} and would literate-ize quite a common pattern, imho. TIA, --Vladimir

[michaelficarra]

@dvv: own = (prop, obj) -> Object::hasOwnProperty.call obj, prop allows you to do if own prop, obj then .... Not a perfect solution, but it's probably good enough. There was a previous suggestion for this, let me look it up. Can't find it, oh well.

[dvv]

sure. That is what i do so far in hope own will become truly helpful keyword. The reasons: each and every file must contain this purely routine shim; one may accidently overwrite 'own' implementation; chances are that compiler already included hasOwn helper which is then purely a bloat; braces required in case of complex objects.

[jashkenas]

I'm afraid this shouldn't be a keyword -- it's already a method on every object. We don't need to turn Object.prototype methods into keywords just for convenience.

[dvv]

What if rename implicit __hasProp to own and always bundle it, so that the coffee code look clean?