On 1 June 2012 06:05, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Brendan Eich wrote: > >> you're just rehashing a concern based on appearances >> > > which (I want to be clear; sorry for harshing on the 'with' point) is a > valid concern. We should discuss it directly, no 'with'-semantics mixed in. > > /be >
Yes, very useful. I'll stick to things like "to me, the syntax makes it look like those identifiers would be resolved via the scope chain" and such. Won't mention `with`. I'm a bit worried that people may have thought I was being derisive by talking about `with`, and that that may have raised hackles. I wasn't. I don't think `with` is a flawed concept at all (I recognize many do), so I don't use it derisively. I agree with, I think, the majority here including (if I'm not mistaken) your own good self that JS's original `with` had serious issues, which in my view were down to it using freestanding identifiers, intermixing object property resolution and scope chain resolution. But I have no problem with the _concept_ in a different form. So in summary and (largely) in closing: 1. I quite like the _idea_ of the cascade proposal, because like Dave (I think?) I find the way cascades are currently done (a'la jQuery, via `return this`) less than ideal. 2. My concerns with it relate to freestanding identifiers and how that _looks_. See earlier note to Dave. 3. I think that concern can be dealt with without going to a `with`-like structure. 4. I also think they could be dealt with via a new `with`-like structure that did not put an object at the top of the scope chain, but instead introduced a placeholder token for the object reference as purely syntactic sugar (~. or similar). To me there's a lot of use there, including cascades. But I seem to be alone. :-) I find that a bit odd, given how similar to that the goals of the cascade sugar seem to be, but if I'm on my own, I'm on my own. Best, -- T.J.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
