On 2010-12-23 23:55, David Herman wrote: > On Dec 23, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > >> We don't know whether [] will be changed >> at all. (In the proposal to add a @ or .# operator, it isn't.) > > Hm, this looks like a pretty serious misunderstanding of the private names > proposal.
I was not referring to the private names proposal, but to the more recent suggestions from various people to add a @ or .# operator instead of changing []. (I should not have referred to those suggestions as a proposal. Careless editing, sorry.) > In every variant of the proposal, the object model is changed so that private > name > values are allowable property keys. This means that in every variant of the > private names proposal, [] can't be defined via a local transformation. This > has *nothing* to do with the @ or .# operators. Changes to [] are not needed if @ or .# is added (or if [# ] is added). -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
