On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the endgame? Add more terminology to the spec or try to define a > term to be adopted into the spoken lexicon? > > The former doesn't currently have any ambiguity and the latter is tough > because... > > 1. Most devs don't even use the term "accessor", instead they say > "getter-setters" > > 2. Most devs will use "value" to describe a scalar and "object" or > "reference" to describe an object... "data" is used to mean either/both > (which is why Brendan's "value objects" makes complete sense: looks like a > value, but is actually an object) > > 3. "method" is the only commonly used term > > > Good points. > > Axel, I don't think "we" can redefine the jargon commonly used by JS > developers. It's enough to track and influence what's commonly written and > spoken. > > In the spec, even ignoring common usage, I would not try to mess with > "data property" right now. As Rick notes, "value" may be taken to mean > "primitive, not reference (object)." > > > Got it. Wanted to avoid NIH in my writings, but will try my best to keep > my own terminology consistent. > > I thought value objects came from “compare by value”, but then I am still > making Rick’s point. > I'm fairly sure the term *value* typically has nothing to do with being * scalar* (strictly speaking a string isn't scalar) or even primitive. It simply means immutable and identified by content, not reference -- and can just as easily apply to product types. This is also the definition given by the value object strawman [1] -- which I really hope to see advanced at some point. [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_objects
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
