On Dec 22, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> I'm still sympathetic to Oliver's objection that declaration-style "private
> #x, #y" does not "look generative" enough. Agree that the sigil addresses
> Mark's concern about confusing literal identifiers with lexically bound
> names, at a Perlish price.
>
> David F. mentioned script concatenation. It happens freely on the web, and it
> is already biting us because of premature "use strict" usage where parts of
> the concatenation violate strict mode and most browsers don't check yet
> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579119).
>
> To me this is the nail in the coffin for "compilation unit private name
> scope". I'm with dherman: lexical scope with a declaration for bindings, but
> it is not clear how to make the declaration look more generative. It seems
> important for similar things to look alike, and
> different-in-generativity/etc. things to look different (somehow).
Consider
function f() {
var captured; //this generates a new long-lived data store
return {get value() {return captured}, set value(n) {captured=n}};
};
or
function g() {
function inner() {};
return inner;
}
I don't see why
private foo;
is any more or less generative than:
var captured;
or
function inner() {};
They are all are declarative forms and all implicitly generate new runtime
entities each time they are evaluated.
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
