On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:13 PM, Rick Waldron wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Erik Arvidsson > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> No surprise here, but I also support using "@" methods. > > > I don't. Please see my response to Kevin Smith: > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-September/033720.html > > > I'm also in >> favor of making methods non enumerable by default. This makes them >> more consistent with what we have in ES today. > > > That might be the case for methods defined on prototypes of built-in > objects, but it's absolutely not the case for user land code. Please see > the examples in my previous response to Allen: > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-September/033725.html > > > so name your events property "@RickWaldron@events". > > If somebody subclasses Emitter and know that property name, then they must > be doing something intentional. > > Unique Symbols don't guarantee that sort of integrity. All you've > accomplish by using them as in your example is to minimize that chance that > somebody else doesn't accidentally use the same property name for some > other purpose. Naming your property "@RickWaldron@events" also makes > such accidentally unlikely. > The Symbol isn't exposed so therefore can't accidentally be used to accidentally pave over the subclass instance object's events cache. As far as the "@RickWaldron@events" Hungarian notation monstrosity is concerned: the first thing I thought when I saw this was that it would never pass any practitioner's peer code review. This is worse then implied collision-safety (or privacy, HA!) of "_"-prefixed properties—worse because the language is saying "go ahead and do this". Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
