Yarn: Consider using `lodash`.

[wtgtybhertgeghgtwtg]

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
I don't think it counts as either. Reworking internals?

What is the current behavior?
lodash is not used. It's in the dependency tree, so it's already there, it's just not being used.
If the current behavior is a bug, please provide the steps to reproduce.

What is the expected behavior?
lodash is used over specific libraries (camelcase, defaults, object-path).
Please mention your node.js, yarn and operating system version.

[xtuc]

Wouldn't you rather remove it from the dependencies?

[wtgtybhertgeghgtwtg]

Sorry, I don't think I said that very well.
yarn depends on inquirer, which depends on lodash. So lodash is in the dependency tree, even though yarn does not have it as a dependency.
I propose adding lodash as a dependency of yarn, since it's already there, and using it instead of specific libraries yarn uses (camelcase, defaults, object-path).

[bestander]

We had lodash as direct dependency in the beginning but ended up replacing it with those few smaller libs.
I don't think we want to bring lodash as a dependency, considering its size, just because some sub dependencies use it.
After all inquierer may decide to depend on a subset of lodash then Yarn would have to replace it again.

[wtgtybhertgeghgtwtg]

Admittedly, it's not the best argument to use lodash.