A couple reactions:
- strings are already interned in current engines for symbol-like performance;
there's no need to introduce symbols into the language
- private names are overkill for most uses of enums; just use string literals
- in SpiderMonkey I think you get better performance if your switch cases use
known constants; for example:
const RED = "red", GREEN = "green", BLUE = "blue";
...
switch (color) {
case RED: ...
case GREEN: ...
case BLUE: ...
}
- with modules, you would be able to define these consts and share them
modularly (currently in SpiderMonkey the only way to share these definitions
across modules as consts is either to make them global or to share an eval-able
string that each module can locally eval as a const declaration -- blech)
Dave
On Sep 30, 2011, at 7:13 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> One language feature from JavaScript that I miss are enums. Would it make
> sense to have something similar for ECMAScript, e.g. via
> Lisp-style/Smalltalk-style symbols plus type inference? If yes, has this been
> discussed already? I feel strange when I simulate symbols with strings.
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>
> [email protected]
> twitter.com/rauschma
>
> home: rauschma.de
> blog: 2ality.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
