On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 00:21, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > I wish you would make your proposal more precise; right now we have to infer > it from your single example. In my conversations with several others on the > committee, I'm already seeing lots of confusion about the semantics of what > you are describing here. Can you write this up as a strawman in more detail?
I will write up a strawman with more details eventually. I just wanted to approach the problem from the use case angle instead of from the primitive building blocks. > Specifically: > > - you haven't made clear whether the semantics does a dynamic property add > and property delete at the beginning and end of the scope; > > - you haven't made clear what the property key that 'filter' refers to in the > example actually is; and > > - you haven't made clear whether there's any way that external code > transitively called during the lifetime of the block could access the > 'filter' property. > > I also have to call a foul when you claim that this can do something that > private names can't but then declare it out of bounds for anyone else to > discuss the validity of that claim. Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. If private names can do this. Great. My issue with the private names discussion was that it was trying to fit a very powerful primitive to a very specific use case and we had a hard time seeing a good fit. Instead I wanted to approach this from the other direction. -- erik _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
