On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 30 September 2012 00:08, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this is too philosophical a discussion to result in a strong > reason > > to risk "symbol". Just my gut-check. Other TC39ers should weigh in > (Andreas > > R. especially). > > Type "symbol" would be my preference, but it is difficult to estimate > (for me) whether that involves a risk. > > However, this clearly is an issue beyond symbols alone. The same > problem re-arises whenever we have to add new primitive types in the > future. It doesn't seem like a sustainable strategy to fake any new > type ever into an object. Perhaps it is less harmful on the long run > if we took the chance to clarify _now_ that the set of strings > returned by 'typeof' is not fixed, and should not be treated as such? > +1 for "symbol", after reading through past concerns about adding new entries to typeof operator results, I'm not convinced that adding something completely new would have any negative side-effects. I'll be the first to admit that there are probably edge cases that I may have missed or didn't find, but I think the real risk is in piling new things on to existing typeof results when they questionably don't belong. Rick > > /Andreas > _______________________________________________ > 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
