T.J. Crowder wrote:
On 1 June 2012 01:40, Brendan Eich <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Let's be precise. You keep bringing 'with' up but it's not
relevant to the cascade proposal, going by Dave's definitions. If
you have the "appearance of 'with'" concern I call out above,
let's argue about that. It's a good one (again it is why I
preferred () a day or so ago).
Yes, that's my concern. Something that looks almost exactly like the
old `with`, complete with implicit magic free symbol resolution,
worries me. I "keep" bringing up `with` because it's implicit in the
proposals. It's not something I'm adding, I'm just shining a light on it.
No, you're just rehashing a concern based on appearances. Operationally
there is nothing 'with'-like in cascades. Please stop asserting more
than "looks" by adding semantic nonsense such as "complete with implicit
magic free symbol resolution".
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
