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 > > Btw, near the end of < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields>, I also say: "I (MarkM) do not like the sugar proposed for Names, as I think it encourages confusion between literal text and lexical lookup. However, this issue seems to be orthogonal to the soft fields vs. Names debate." > /be > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
