Mike Samuel wrote: > 2009/12/15 Tom Van Cutsem <to...@google.com>: >> Hi, >> >> Could you motivate why you chose to append the string "Quasi" to the type >> tag identifier? [...] >> I know E employs a similar mechanism, but I don't know if it's worth having >> it for Javascript. >> Essentially, this is a form of name-mangling, which is fine if you're doing >> macros/translation/compilation where the programmer is shielded from the >> mangled name, but is weird when the programmer has to work with both mangled >> and non-mangled names. If the type tag Identifier is going to be resolved >> lexically anyway, and not in some separate namespace, wouldn't it be simpler >> if one could write: >> >> var html = ...; >> ... >> html`...` > >> It is immediately apparent, even to someone not familiar with the language >> feature's details, that 'html' will somehow refer to the quasi-function
I'm with Tom on this. I've always thought E's mangling of the tag is ugly. (Note that one possible reason for doing that in E -- the fact that there are other namespaces that work in a similar way such as *__uriGetter -- does not apply to ECMAScript.) > I'm not sure that it's obvious that there would be a linkage between a > type tag and a function of the same name, but I am worried about > posible collisions due to the dearth of short type-descriptive names > available for use as local variable names. Consider: var html = > html`...`; One possibility is to make the tags uppercase by convention: HTML`...`; XML`...`; SQL`...`; Since language names are very often acronyms, this looks perfectly natural (and I think it looks fine even when the name is not an acronym). -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
