On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Nov 18, 2010, at 4:08 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote: >> [...] >> Worse, the use of colon in this new for syntax is confusingly similar to >> long-standing future-proofing intentions around runtime type annotations >> (aka guards or contracts). >> >> (BTW, I don't think :: is a good type annotation or guard punctuator, btw >> -- it's the C++ namespace qualification operator, also specified for >> namespacing by ECMA-357 (E4X) and used that way in ActionScript 3 (and in >> ES4, RIP). So I was surprised to see :: used for annotation-like syntax in >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards and >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:trademarks.) >> > > Note that I do not consider the trademarks strawman ready for discussion. > Accordingly I had recently moved it from the strawman page to the deferred > page. I want to do a rather extensive rewrite before I'll be happy enough > with it. > > > Thanks, I didn't mean to spotlight it, hence my parentheses (and double > BTW/btw ;-). > > > I think the guards strawman is in fine shape for discussion. It postpones > most of the semantic issues to other specs (like trademarks eventually) that > would parameterize the guards strawman by proposing a concrete meaning for > its internal Coerce___ function. > > The reason I chose "::" over ":" is not for a love of "::". Alternative > suggestions appreciated! However, I avoided ":" so that we could guard > properties within object literals < > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:guards#guarding_properties>. > I don't see a way to use ":" for that without confusion. The ES4 solution -- > that one can only annotate an object literal as a whole but not its > individual properties -- always seemed unpleasant. > > > :: is strictly less pleasant, and really kind of "taken" due to the > precedents I cited. The "less pleasant" point is the big one IMHO. > Can we find something better than "::" that doesn't conflict with the ":" in the object literal syntax? As I said, I have no love for "::". > > /be > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
