Excellent solution: i love the spread syntax. But i think in this case it's gonna work only for a few and well known properties to exclude from the wanted output (luca). What if the original object has hundreds of them?
Anyways, there are plenty of solutions to this problem. One for all, if you'd like to rely on some dependency: lodash.
Does lastName value get assigned to const _? I take it the _ is a convention for unused variables, seen it used before for arguments that are not referenced (I think)
22 years old, Computer Science student and currently Software Engineer at Netcetera. Passionate about technology, programming, specifically about deep learning, algorithms and applied maths.
Location
Skopje, Macedonia
Education
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies
Yup, it's mostly an unwritten rule adopted as a convention for variables that must be there but aren't going to be referenced anywhere. Similarly if you want to use .map() but only need the index, not the element itself for some weird reason:
constnewArr=arr.map((_,idx)=>{/* do something only with idx */});
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
You could also write
Excellent solution: i love the spread syntax. But i think in this case it's gonna work only for a few and well known properties to exclude from the wanted output (luca). What if the original object has hundreds of them?
Anyways, there are plenty of solutions to this problem. One for all, if you'd like to rely on some dependency: lodash.
Does
lastNamevalue get assigned toconst _? I take it the_is a convention for unused variables, seen it used before for arguments that are not referenced (I think)Yup, it's mostly an unwritten rule adopted as a convention for variables that must be there but aren't going to be referenced anywhere. Similarly if you want to use
.map()but only need the index, not the element itself for some weird reason: