On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:46, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, I asked for something else. How do it do: "get a private property of >> <<foo>> whose name is computed by <<expression>>"? Something like >> foo.@[expr]? Or is there no way to do it? >> In other words, what is [] syntax for foo.@bar? foo.@["bar"]? foo["@bar"]? > > @bar is a shorthand[*] for this[bar] > object.@bar is a shorthand[*] for object[bar] > > There is no way to compute a string "bar" to do the lookup since that > would break private name encapsulation: > > let object = ... > { > let key = Name.create() > let secret = {} > object.@key = secret > } > > There must be no way to get access to secret here. > > [*] Using @ does not really invoke []. That is important if private > names are going to work with the extended collection proposals Allen > proposed. > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
Shorter Arv: Private Names are not strings, they're unforgeable objects. Thus, it's impossible by design to have an analog of foo["bar"+baz] for Private Names. I wrote a blog post about the subject: <http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4FJ0> ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
