Yes, I also would like to know why this simpler older model was not good
enough.
Herby
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Couldn’t you have the same advantages if:
- obj.@foo was syntactic sugar for obj[foo]
- @foo was syntactic sugar for [foo] (method definitions, property
definitions, etc.)
foo would be a normal variable and the following two statements would be
equivalent:
private foo;
let foo = new Name();
foo containing a string would also work.
That would be slightly simpler and go together well with your proposed
object model reformation [1]:
https://gist.github.com/3505466
[1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:04 , Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The strawman is at
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:syntactic_support_for_private_names
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
