On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:29 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> 1) should .@ member access and @ object literal property definitions permit
>> he property key to be any toString-able value and not just private name
>> values? The current plan of record does not require a private name value in
>> the analogous contexts.
>> I'm slightly inclined towards requiring private name values, but would be
>> happy either way.
>
> As noted above, I'm inclined toward requiring private name objects on the
> right of @.
It seems like an unfortunate inconvenience to require any code refactoring and
lose the shorthand @ this-access if you just want to make a private property on
an object be public. Instead of just restricting the token to the right of a @
or .@ construct be a private name, perhaps it would be useful to also permit an
explicitly declared public name?
private x,y;
function point(x,y) {
@x = x;
@y = y;
}
can easily be transformed into:
public x,y;
function point(x,y) {
@x = x;
@y = y;
}
This would still provide a guard against typos, whilst giving convenient access
to public properties on the this object.
cheers,
G.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
