I agree (unsurprisingly) with Arv and Yehuda on this. Side effects are what make the world go 'round. Getting overly prescriptive here is just a way to box us into [not]using some particular stylistic form when designing API...and I don't see how that settles any interesting questions. I'd much rater we have debates as they arise about what is most idiomatic/performant/etc. We can use the weight of precedent to inform those discussions, but I'm pretty shocked that we would want to converge on hard/fast rules about accessors.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > * get/set accessor may have effects on 'set' (see the DOM) but only on > the > > receiver object (and unobservably, any children that become garbage, e.g. > > when trimming .length on an array-like). > > That is very limiting, even as a guideline. Any time there are two or > more related objects it is very likely that a setter might affect some > other object. > > -- > erik > _______________________________________________ > 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
