Chiming in only with one question: is interoperability between PL and different environments a concern at all?
I think having unique identifiers like Symbols is a better solution too but right yesterday I've made a PR to convert V8 Enum type to GObject enums using its integer value [1] 'cause that's how it also work the other way round [2]. How would a JS Symbol as enumerable be represented in Emscripten generated code or how could Int32 enum based PL transpile their enums to JS? Maybe I am overlooking at this and it's not a real issue? Regards [1] https://github.com/WebReflection/gnode/commit/56c5801866452c1e4973ed0c42f80dcda9d3d8c6 [2] https://github.com/WebReflection/gnode/blob/master/src/value.cc#L279-L280 On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > A union is a kind of sum type -- either this or that. Order may matter for > reflective use-cases, indeed. That's a good point. Whether symbol values by > default are best wants a bit more debate too, I think. > > /be > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 8:53 AM Coroutines <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > `enum` has precedent -- C-like languages indeed use integers by >> default, but >> > see Rust for a generalized form: >> https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/enums.html >> > -- for a category-theory "sum" type and IMHO handily beats `sym` or >> `sum`. >> >> I just mean that using `enum` to define symbols/identifiers sounds >> odd, as enum is short for 'enumerate' no? We wouldn't be enumerating >> symbols as that suggests order behind the symbol >> identifiers/references, imo :> >> >> Rust's enum/sum value type sounds like a typed union.. the type flag >> is just hidden? >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
