Sorry, that was too short. I don't understand what "using string literal specified, non-identifier property names" brings to the table to fundamentally alter the constraints that we've been working with that led to the consensus at the last f2f.
Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325 On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Yehuda Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yehuda Katz > (ph) 718.877.1325 > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:50 PM, David Herman wrote: >> >> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Domenic Denicola < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> I don't understand why this is happening. There was fairly strong >> consensus on symbols at the last meeting, and nothing new has been brought >> to the table. Why are people's opinions suddenly changing? Vague >> fearmongering about "complexity"? Symbols are a good solution to a real >> problem, much better than strings. >> > >> > +so much >> > >> > I am very disappointed by this thread. >> >> Actually, something new was brought to the table. The convention of >> using string literal specified, non-identifier property names for >> stratified meta operations. >> > > How is that new? > > >> >> It's enough to at least spend a few minutes to consider whether that is >> good enough to do for the primary use case (in the ES spec,) for Symbols. >> >> Allen >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
