On 4/4/2013 11:52 AM, David Bruant wrote:
"The /name/ property is initialized with the best value given static
semantics"
=> I think all the rules should be explicitly laid out (i think that's
what you did in the subsections after this sentence) to avoid
implementation-specific interpretations of this sentence. Some
previous work [1] could be considered as finding "the best value given
static semantics".
Also, "given static semantics" is a fluctuating definition since the
result can change when new syntax is added.
Yeah, the purpose of that paragraph is to intro the following content,
not stand alone. I agree that it could be improved and clarified; a
better phrasing might be "given the following static semantics...". The
set of rules used to name functions should not (and I don't think it
does) leave any room open to interpretation by implementers.
[1] http://johnjbarton.github.com/nonymous/index.htm
This is good stuff but I would argue that it's not naming the function.
It's providing a path or description of its origin, suited for debugging
rather than naming. For example:
class Set {
add(item){ /***/ }
}
I would argue that the best name for the method is "add" while the
path/origin of it might be "Set#add". They are orthogonal in my opinion,
and "name" is much simpler to specify.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
