On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the names proposal, it seems that once in scope of a "private draw" > declaration, all apparent uses of "draw" as a property name are amplifying. > Even if the object being accessed has a normally named "draw" property, > "gun.draw()" will fail to access it. Is that right?
Yes, that's correct. In the scope of a 'private x' declaration, all uses of F.x are rewritten to F[x] instead of the usual F["x"]. If you want F["x"], it can be written explicitly, of course. It's important to have this property so that names can be used to add non-interfering additional properties to existing objects. In particular, a rendering library should be able to add 'draw' methods to cowboys without interfering with any of their existing properties. Also, I really don't think that rewriting f.x to f[x] is amplifying, since that expression is necessarily already able to access the private name, since it is in scope. -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
