Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
- closer to object === "symbol have its own identity, state and
behaviour, I can add new properties and methods etc." (an array is
good example of this, if you consider what it can do _beyond_ elements
and length)
- close to string === "symbol have its own identity and a little more
than that"
IOW, it seems to me that symbols are more like "parallel" set of
strings, of which every new one is different ("has different sequence
of chars"), but it does not carry all the other "object-like" traits
with it.
That still leaves open the possibility that someone could forge a string
equal to the symbol, which is not possible.
More or less, only things that matters if if a symbol a === a symbol
b. Which I see as string-like, not an object-like.
No, symbols are not strings.
No, they're not, of-course. I'd say they string-like (more than
object-like).
If you say strings have content and are forgeable, that shows that what
I wanted to say, is something slightly different. Basically I wanted to
say that such entities (where identity is only thing they have; which
seemed for me closer to string than to object) are "atoms" (maybe they
can have typeof "atom" with future possibility to use it for other such
beasts, if they occur beyond symbols).
But OTOH, all primitives are "atoms" in this view (strings, too). The
only difference is, if they are forgeable (that is, I can produce them
by some operations, like +, from their peers). If fact, I don't see this
as distiguishing property enough. The nature of "I hold no subvalues, my
identity is my value" is what separates primitives from objects (or
maybe not primitives, but atoms, and primitives <= atoms), not the
forgeability.
So, symbols look to me more like primitives/atoms (that means, not an
object nor function) and so they should have their own typeof...
* You can't forge a symbol, but you can easily make up any string, with
some effort brute-force-attack a secret string, etc.
* Symbols do not get auto-wrapped by String wrappers (or appear to be
auto-wrapped) such that String.prototype methods work.
I agree with Tom, "object" is the best choice if we are to avoid
extending typeof's codomain. If we choose to extend, then your best case
made above arguess for "symbol", not "string".
/be
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
