Sorry I didn't copy my perspective over here from clojure-dev as someone who's been working as a JavaScript dev for the past 6 years -----
The proposed change is not optimal and I think it clashes with the realities of JavaScript interop. (.property foo) Currently gives us a notion of "place", that means we can set it: (set! (.property foo) "bar") This convention is quite common in many JavaScript APIs, for example pretty everything in the browser: (set! (.id foo) "my-css-id")) (set! (.fillStyle ctxt) "rgb(255, 150, 0)") Now compare to the proposed change: (set! (. foo :id) "my-css-id")) (set! (. ctxt :fillStyle) "rgb(255, 150, 0)") I don't see any win. Any proposed change should account for the fact that getters / setters are not a convention in JS and many, many APIs expect direct field access. David On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Jack Moffitt <j...@metajack.im> wrote: > > Thoughts? > > I like it. +1 to it going in sooner rather than later. > > jack. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
