While I was admiring the pros of its mutation, I overlooked how unclear it was
that a mutation was even occurring... Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
/Rick
On Nov 11, 2011, at 8:22 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>> Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator
>> always looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still
>> be as vile? With that form, I'm a big fan.
>
> I'm of multiple minds (a condition I'm gradually getting accustomed to).
>
> 1) I'm really against the current syntax, because it hides the fact that it's
> a mutation. Assignments masquerading as declarative forms bring out Angry
> Dave (you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...)
>
> 2) I like it better if it includes "=" in it, e.g.:
>
> obj .= { foo: 1, bar: 2 };
>
> 3) But that makes me really wish for a more general expression form, so I
> could also do e.g.:
>
> obj1 .= obj2;
>
> I've even written up a strawman for it:
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:batch_assignment_operator
>
> 4) Allen has pointed out that this is problematic for private names. For many
> use cases, it'd be fine if .= just didn't copy any private names -- done. But
> Allen's class pattern wanted to be able to specify private names. So he
> restricted the RHS to look like a literal.
>
> 5) Still, I have to say, the restricted RHS just seems ad hoc and
> unsatisfying.
>
> Anyway, I'm still mulling.
>
> Dave
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
