On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ... >> >> A negative is that it was decided that concise methods definitions create >> enumerable properties and I don't think we really want these showing up in >> for-in enumerations. Maybe we would want to revisit that decisions or at >> least make an exception for concise methods (or accessors) defined using >> explicit string literal names. >> > > The whole point of making them enumerable was to undo a decision to that > made an exception for concise methods—that applies to properties that were > defined with string literal names ( > https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2012-09/sept-18.md#concise-method-definition-revisited > ) > > var o = { > "method": function() {} > }; > > Should behave exactly the same as > > var o = { > "method"() {} > }; > > > Maybe the exception could be enumerability exception could be concise > methods with string literal property names that do not parse as > IdentifierName. > I'm trying to understand if there is something I'm missing about "string literal property names that do not parse as IdentifierName" that is somehow different from what exists today. What happens here: var o = { "@concise"() {} }; o["@method"] = function() {}; jQuery.extend(Some.prototype, o); Some.prototype["@concise"] = "MINE"; Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
