On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Luke Hoban <[email protected]> wrote: >>> That sort of pattern certainly can be repeated if push comes to shove. But >>> I believe doing so is far inferior to dedicated, first-class syntactical >>> support to make the semantics absolutely unambiguous and un-confusable with >>> anything else. > > This makes sense. I just want to make sure that the fundamental capability > to subclass built-in objects is available via libraries for text/javascript, > with the new syntax offering the more performant option for text/harmony.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but <| seems like something that could be provided to 'text/javascript' just as easily as 'text/the-next-javascript'. Unlike using |module| as a keyword, or changing the scope rules or |typeof null|, no working 'text/javascript' program uses <| at the moment. -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
