Ok, then I'm fine with it. Please note that the current strawman still make use
of the # symbol, which is why I thought you were using both of them in a future
proposal.
Anyway, what do you think of my “–>” proposal for private names?
I tend to like it, since it solves one of the concern many people made for
private names (that it introduced a difference between o.prop and o["prop"],
and that introducing a private name force you to check all your code since all
property accesses are susceptible to be modified by the insertion of the
private instruction before them). Using a specific instruction for private
names solves this problem completely.
It also release a special char (#,@, or whatever char you wanted to use) for
other uses, since private->name works pretty well and is very consistent with
obj->property. I'm not sure that @.name is really the way to go for private
names since we don't have many special chars left and there are good
alternative ways to solve this problem. Even if we keep the current "."
approach for private names, we could use "private.name" to get a private name
handle.
As I already said, I don't find it natural to define functions by writing an
arrow *between* the arguments and the method body. Even mathematicians don't do
this in real life. Everybody use exp(x) = Σ(x^n/n!) and not exp(x) -> Σ(x^n/n!)
while this is the official notation. Not to say it becomes really strange when
you don't have arguments at all, like in setInterval(=>this.doAction(), 1000);
If we could use a # or a @ notation for short function notation, I would be
very pleased, and my developers would be, too. If that was not possible, I
would not defend this anymore, but I'm under the impression it's still time to
manage to get this syntax instead of the arrow syntax. I'm really convinced
that, if given the choice, the majority of JavaScript developers would go for a
@(x) or #(x) syntax ahead of an arrow syntax notation. But maybe am I wrong.
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 7:42 PM
To: François REMY
Cc: Sean Eagan ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: [Arrow function syntax] Move Arrow to head to
fixArrowFormalParameters issues
On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:38 AM, François REMY wrote:
> Last time I asked, it was the "#" char that was wanted for private names. If
> "#" has been replaced by "@" in private names, then we can replace "@" by "#"
> in my proposal, and return to the original proposal of #functions.
# is wanted for frozen/joined value types: joined functions with shorter
syntax, records, tuples.
Hope this helps, it's not fun grabbing the last few easily-typed characters not
used by JS. Quasis use ` now.
The punctuation soup argument is a bit general and overused against attribute
modifiers for properties, IMHO, but it is a good countervailing force against
lame single-character "land grabs" to try to shorten (some) syntax without
thinking much about usability, semantics, future uses, or connotation in other
languages.
> If private name uses both @ and #, I raise *severe* concerns about it.
No one ever said any such thing.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
