On Aug 28, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote: > Dave Herman wrote: >> Reformed `with' depended on type annotations and structural type >> syntax, >> which are undergoing discussion. So I think reformed `with' is up >> in the >> air for now. > > I find it odd that reformed |with| required such exact type > annotations, when nothing else does.
Please read http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:reformed_with the last paragraph in particular. > It would seem that these > are very similar, from an early-binding viewpoint: > > var {a, b, c} = fn(); > x = a; > > var obj = fn(); > x = obj.a; > with (obj : {a, b, c}) > { x = a; // Desugars to obj.a > } Your example includes neither type constraints nor mutation. > Equally it would seem that disambiguating syntax would allow > early binding, if it were enforced: > > with (obj) > { x = .a; // Desugars to obj.a New syntax could solve the ambiguity problem, but not the type variance problem. /be > y = a; // From the lexical scope > } > > -- > Ingvar von Schoultz > > _______________________________________________ > Es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
