Should Ember.isEmpty({}) be true? about rfcs

[rlivsey]

Previous discussion indicated that this was because of support for ES3 browsers. Now that Ember 2.0 is dropping support for IE8 then this should be possible.

[mmun]

Any changes these functions will likely break a lot of apps :( It would require mass consensus to change.

[stefanpenner]

Although I agree this would be nice I think this should be user land or addon concern. What defines an empty object is tricky (although I'm sure consensus can be reached) but changes to these core methods would provide dubious value as existing apps do depend on the current semantics.

I suspect if we where to write isEmpty today it would include a reasonable semantic for this

[mmun]

An addon is a good solution.

[Panman82]

What about making an addon to "opt-in", then make the switch at 3.0? Then add a depreciation (sigh) about installing the addon to silence the depreciation, when the developer ensures their code will handle the change properly.

[stefanpenner]

@Panman8201 i don't think making the change is worth-while, isEmpty has semantics, changing them is a-bit of a trap. An addon providing some variation of it, sounds like the best path.

Going to close this as working as intended.

[benoror]

Just created a hbs helper for this particular use-case: https://gist.github.com/benoror/d9a3fb6f4892897af390bcb9d8cbeddf