On Dec 23, 2010, at 5:03 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> 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.)
a) I don't recall seeing people suggesting adding a .# operator instead of
changing '[]', but rather instead of changing '.'. To wit, the difference is
between:
private #x;
... obj.#x ...
and
private x;
... obj.x ...
In both versions, it's also possible to do:
var x = gensym();
... obj[x] ...
But this is irrelevant, since:
b) You're shifting the terms of the debate anyway. You can't decide for
yourself what you want others to propose so you can argue with your favorite
strawman. All along, Allen, Brendan, and I have been talking about a proposal
wherein property names are first-class values that are usable as property
names. This is not separable from the proposal.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
