Concerns regarding lang's internal isObject function

[kfranqueiro]

This function is used to determine when something should be copied/assigned recursively. It currently returns true for things that report typeof as object that are not Arrays or RegExps. But I would think there are other things (e.g. Date) that should also return false here.

@mwistrand suggested Object.prototype.toString.call(item) === '[object Object]' as a possible alternative that would avoid this slippery slope. Can anyone think of a reason that would be undesirable?

[kitsonk]

I tried to "break" Object.prototype.toString.call(item) === '[object Object]' and it seems to behave correctly, including Iterators and Symbols.

[mwistrand]

Thanks for thinking to test Symbols; I neglected those. As far as I can tell, this rather ugly method is the most reliable means of correctly determining whether something is a POJO.

[kfranqueiro]

It's way less ugly than the song-that-never-ends that the current code would be tending towards :P and I've seen it elsewhere, I just always forget about it.

[bryanforbes]

I'm more concerned that @mwistrand used "POJO" than I am with using this method...