> 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. > > > Instead of creating a lot of complicated rules for 'object', how about > creating a new type 'collection'?
The result would be simple, but getting to #1 would indeed be a little awkward, because existing code would still work, but would not use best practices. What are you suggesting? A new primitive? Or a subtype of Object? I don’t think there is a third alternative to those two. -- 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
