Dean Landolt wrote:
FWIW Jason convinced me in the end -- I was subtly misinterpreting the
spec.
Oh, my apologies!
Allen, what say you? We should resolve this ASAP since engines are
implementing ES6 for-of and iterators. Cc'ing Andy too.
I still believe symbols (or something like them) are really important,
just not necessarily for iterators.
Agreed.
I'd also like to echo the sentiment in favor of private symbols.
Unique symbols really don't offer much over GUIDs, and don't make a
whole lot of sense in a world without private symbols. And in a world
with private symbols unique symbols aren't strictly necessary.
Agreed again. Great to see convergence in people's thinking.
I don't fully grok the relationships strawman yet but it looks really
promising. I wonder what a /maximally minimal/ version of it might
look like -- if it could be stripped down enough to just accommodate
the needs of the es6 spec. while remaining palatable and leaving the
door to private symbols open? Anything to avoid GUIDs. I'd bet most
everyone would concede they're are a smell, an es-regret waiting to
happen :)
Cc'ing Mark. If I understand correctly, the issue with relationships is
the difference between weakmap as R and symbol as R. A weakmap is a
mutable object so a side channel, a symbol is immutable (all the way
down, which is not far because symbols are shallow).
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
