On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> It might be useful to expose this functionality with a more obvious >> name, to underscore that you lose the secrecy/unforgability. >> Symbol.public()? > > We are mooting public as the keyword for non-private but unique symbols, so > that's ambiguous. ReallyPublic? :-P We want to capture the singleton sharing, > and 'intern' is the jargon word to use. For the jargon-disabled, I'm not sure > what to use, but perhaps teaching people about intern'ing is better than > using some long Java-esque name.
lookup? interned? Note that in most cases, you want to look up an already interned symbol name rather than intern a new one. If the lookup falls back to creating, typos will tend to get hidden. BTW, other than as a place to hang this function, I still don't see why we need a named Symbol constructor. symbol @foo; and symbol @foo = new Symbol. mean exactly the same thing, assuming Symbol has its default binding. I just don't see what value we get from cluttering the name spaces with a built-in constructor that doesn't add any new functionality. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
