2012/9/29 Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> > On 28 September 2012 18:28, Tom Van Cutsem <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree that proxying a symbol is of little value, but I didn't say that > > symbols are closer to strings than to objects. I think symbols are > closer to > > objects: they have an unforgeable identity. Strings don't have that, > objects > > do. > > I don't follow how generative creation is synonym to "identity", nor > how identity implies being an object. Should we make everything an > object just because we can? For symbols in particular I completely > fail to see a good reason for doing so (now that we are able to drop > the "public" name property). It will just induce extra cost for > dubious semantic value -- or actually, semantic cost, as the issue of > proxying them indicates.
I'm not against thinking of symbols as an entirely new "class" of values. I was mostly arguing against the idea of having typeof symbol be "string". If there are good reasons for symbols not to get their own typeof type, I just think "object" would be more reasonable than "string". Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
