On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:50 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> From my perspective as a JS programmer, overloading the dot seems confusing.
> The gains in elegance don't appear to me to be worth it. However,
> overloading [] might be more acceptable:
[] gets no respect, I tell ya! ;-)
> let x = new PrivateName();
> // or perhaps:
> private x;
>
> function Point()
> {
> this[x] = 100;
> }
>
> function createPoint()
> {
> return {
> [x]: 100,
> };
This is an interesting idea, one I've heard about from Pythonistas who want
property names to be evaluated expressions, not implciitly quoted literals if
identifier-names, in object initialiser. It would save some amount of eval and
Function use.
It conflicts with the original MetaProperties syntax at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_initialiser_extensions
(grammar) and
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:obj_initialiser_meta
(examples), which went like so:
var fancyObj = {
[proto: fancyProto, sealed]
prop1: value1,
. . .
};
but now uses <> instead of []. So no longer a strawman conflict, but I fear the
angle brackets are going to cause us some grammatical and nesting-in-HTML pain.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
