Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps? Dave
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo are precisely identical in all > > contexts. This regularity helps understandability. The terseness difference > > above is not an adequate reason to sacrifice it. > > Aren't you proposing the same syntax x[i] where i is a soft field map, to > make exactly the same sacrifice? > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names_vs_soft_fields > > I am *not* proposing these syntactic extensions. Neither am I avoiding them > on that page, since the point of that page is to compare semantics, not > syntax. The first paragraph (!) of that page clearly states: > > "This translation does not imply endorsement of all elements of the names > proposal as translated to soft fields, such as the proposed syntactic > extensions." > > The two issues are orthogonal. Whichever of Names or Soft Fields wins, we can > have an orthogonal argument about whether the winner should use this > syntactic shorthand. Conversely, whatever the outcome of the syntax argument > in this thread, they would apply equally well to either semantics. > > > > /be > > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
