On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:51 PM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
> 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.
As I wrote, we wouldn't put |this| on the scope chain. Rather, declared (by
whatever special form) instance variable names would create lexical bindings
that alias |this| properties of the same name.
>
> 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.
No |with|, see above.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
