Require Object Literal Shorthand Syntax (object-shorthand)

[feross]

Thoughts on enabling this rule? https://eslint.org/docs/rules/object-shorthand

ECMAScript 6 provides a concise form for defining object literal methods and properties. This syntax can make defining complex object literals much cleaner.

Here are a few common examples using the ES5 syntax:

// properties
var foo = {
    x: x,
    y: y,
    z: z,
}

// methods
var foo = {
    a: function() {},
    b: function() {}
}

Now here are ES6 equivalents:

// properties
var foo = {x, y, z}

// methods
var foo = {
    a() {},
    b() {}
}

Related to: #159

[mightyiam]

I'd love this.

avoidQuotes

false, because minimalism? Although I don't remember writing such a function. avoidQuotes is relevant only to functions, isn't it? If I understand this correctly, then I'd say false. I have no problem with

{ 'foo-bar'() {} }

ignoreConstructors

Why is this a thing, please? I don't understand how in the example the rule can figure out that it's a constructor. It determines according to the name of the function, ConstructorFunction? Is it case detection?

And, again, why bother making it an exception at all?

avoidExplicitReturnArrows

I kinda like it. Yes... I'd say true. It kinda gets a bit too nit-picky compared to the rest of Standard, maybe. But why not? There are two ways of writing it and we can decide on one.