I would like to encourage everyone to stop arguing about whether my old syntax at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields#can_we_subsume_names> was or was not a faithful adaptation of the old names syntax at < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names>. Names has moved beyond that old syntax and I am now concerned with the new one. My apologies for not updating my old page since then.
At the top of < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names_vs_soft_fields> I show a soft fields desugaring for the currently proposed names syntax. Because [] is problematic for the reasons Dave and Brendan have explained, I delay the discussion of [] till < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names_vs_soft_fields#accessing_private_identifiers_as_soft_field_values>, where it parallels the discussion of [] in the private names proposal. There, I examine that issue a bit, mentioning that we could use the "kludge" on my earlier page, but also showing alternatives that some here will find less satisfying. Be sure to read to the bottom of that section. In any case, I'd like to withdraw my unqualified use of "orthogonal" on this thread, lest it be misunderstood as a claim that the syntax issues for private names and for soft fields are precisely identical. Please everyone, read the page where I go through parallel examples. I discuss some pros and cons each way as I go. I wrote this listings of differences before this thread started. I stand by my overall sense that the syntactic issues are still independent enough from the semantics that, with minor adjustments, any viable syntax proposal could be applied to either semantics. I still think the syntax and semantics at stake here are best discussed as separate questions, unless of course one of these non-orthogonalities actually turns out to be important. I would also like to encourage the continued exploration of alternative syntaxes, such as the sigil and @ approaches previously mentioned. Brendan, I still do not understand why you think it is illegitimate to consider private names and soft fields as alternatives. Do you really think we should provide syntactic support for both? -- Cheers, --Dr. Freeze
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
