Thanks! Nothing surprises me about Racket. Maybe when it *doesn’t* have a feature. ;-)
On Oct 22, 2011, at 1:13 , Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Also, in general this sort of well known private method name hook is much >> more extensible than "internal method" as currently used in the es spec. >> They also avoid the need to polute the Proxy API >> >> Reified names (private or otherwise) are a very powerful mechanism. I’m not >> aware of another programming language that does this (possibly Common Lisp >> with its symbols, but I don’t know enough about them). It’s good to have >> them, because they increase JavaScript’s expressiveness. > > Private names in basically the same form as have been accepted for > ES.next are available in Racket [1], with the equivalent of the > 'private x;' syntax that we proposed but didn't make the cut. I > believe that the system in Racket was one of the inspirations for > Dave's original private name proposal long long ago. > > [1] > http://pre.racket-lang.org/docs/html/reference/createclass.html?q=define-local#%28form._%28%28lib._racket/private/class-internal..rkt%29._define-local-member-name%29%29 > -- > sam th > [email protected] > -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
