-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1, I think this was one of the most valuable features from ES4. Kris
Peter Michaux wrote: > The strawman:names wiki page > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names > > starts with > > "It is not possible to create hidden properties in an object when > property names can only be strings." > > Why can't a string-named property be private? I understand they aren't > now but why couldn't the "private" keyword make a string-named > property private? > > ------------ > > At the bottom of the same page > > "Should we allow new Name('blah') for better printed representation? > (Similar to (gensym 'blah) in Scheme)" > > If there is "a new Name constructor" as mentioned higher in the wiki > page, then why wouldn't "new Name('blah')" be allowed? > > Since (gensym) returns a symbol, the above quotation makes it seem > that the proposed Name objects are like Scheme symbols, correct? If > this is the case, why not just call them Symbol objects? There is > precedence for "symbol" in many languages and "symbol" is far less > overloaded in the programming world than "name". > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > - -- Kris Zyp SitePen (503) 806-1841 http://sitepen.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkkkbQAACgkQ9VpNnHc4zAxiCwCdEkxxtaZ4S0cc9Fp/dR/tT+nj QVoAn0owxy9CdQP/S2y0VNZ4DsBwGmiy =NQs+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
