On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is what I see. At the meeting, we decide to look at a "mustache" that > addressed two generally orthogonal sets of use cases. We looked at that and > found significant issues in using one construct for both sets of use cases. > We then saw how we could use distinct syntax for the two sets of use cases > and avoid those issues. However, at that point some of us, who seem > primarily interest in only one of the use case sets seem to be essentially > saying (just my perception), ok I have may solution, let's blow off the other > set of use cases as they aren't very important.
No offense taken, but in defense of my position, I'm arguing that we can toss the [[DefineOwnProperty]] from a YAGNI perspective, unless/until someone demonstrates that we do indeed need that behavior. I suspect that's also the intent of several others arguing similarly on the list. (I can personally get behind a suggestion to start by inventing a less cumbersome [[DOP]] API than Object.defineProperties, and see if there's an uptick in use. If so, we can then come back and bless some syntax for it as necessary.) However, I'm not a committee member, just a sideline commenter. ^_^ ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
