On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Oliver and others *do* want x and y to be in scope somehow. They can't > be via the |this| parameter object on the scope chain, though. That's > dynamic scope (the prototype is extensible, or *a* prototype, possibly > Object.prototype, is). But the desire to avoid this. prefixing is natural > and predictable for people coming from C++, Java, etc. Should we consider > supporting this expectation somehow, rather than steering people away from > it with less natural syntax? > When I first started using JS heavily, having to type this. everywhere drove me up the wall. Now I love it. It's definitely more verbose (and I really like CoffeeScript's answer here) but I think it's worth it to have a clear distinction between variables in lexical scope and properties of objects. When I went back to Java from JS, I found *not* having to do this. felt weird and magical. I think it works OK in a static language, but I'm not sure if it's asking for trouble in a dynamic one. > My question for everyone: will users expect declared property names to be > in-scope, no matter what the syntax for declaring or defining them is? I > suspect so, and that makes me think we're not going to do well by > "counter-steering" with object literal property init syntax. > I'd like to hope not. Aside from the now dead with, I didn't think there were any places in the language where properties were in scope now, so I don't know if they would expect that to change. - bob
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
