>> Then we can continue to use . and [] to access properties and use @[] to >> access data structure elements. I wouldn’t like the asymmetry introduced by >> using [] for the latter task. > > this is plausible and certainly a way to avoid outrage about defining [ ]. > I'll have to stew on it a bit to see if I like it better or less.
An equally clean alternative (apologies if this is what you meant all along): - Discourage [] for accessing properties via computed names, in favor of a reflective function (if possible as part of a module and not an Object.* method), e.g. getPropertyByName(obj, name) and setPropertyByName(obj, name, value). - Let [] default to using these methods on objects and arrays. - Use [] freely for collections and dicts. One can use either special name objects, special names or new names for operators, e.g. operator[] and operator[]= PROBLEM: the easy way of using name objects goes away: this[nameObject] Thus, there really are two alternatives: 1. Changing [] in the above manner plus object@nameObject for accessing properties (as you suggested). 2. [] stays as it is and @[] (perhaps there is something slicker, e.g. .[]) is introduced for collections and dicts. Axel -- 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
