On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:11 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > On 2010-12-17 01:24, David Herman wrote: >> Mark Miller wrote: >>> Ok, I open it for discussion. Given soft fields, why do we need private >>> names? >> >> I believe that the syntax is a big part of the private names proposal. It's >> key to the usability: in my view, the proposal adds 1) a new abstraction to >> the object model for private property keys and 2) a new declarative >> abstraction to the surface language for creating these properties. > > I don't like the private names syntax. I think it obscures more than it > helps usability, and losing the x["id"] === x.id equivalence is a significant > loss.
As Chuck Jazdzewski pointed out, this equivalence does not hold for id not an IdentifierName. The new equivalence under private names would be x[#.id] === x.id. > As Mark points out, though, that syntax can be supported with either > proposal. The private names proposal is more entangled with syntactic > changes, but that's a bug, not a feature. No, that is a usability feature. The inherited soft fields approach is more entangled with its reference implementation, which is not the efficient route VM implementors can swallow. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
