> [Reflect] Not a breaking change because adding a new global isn't new syntax,
> it's just a new variable that exists and essentially can't break much.
It either isn’t a breaking change, or can’t break much. It cannot be both.
> Not a breaking change because this constructor did not exist before.
Are you entirely sure? There’s no code anywhere which doesn’t have an object
called Symbol invoked with `new Symbol()`? The moment you add a global
anything, you break someone’s code somewhere.
> I don't think I'd call super properties metaproperties for this reason.
>`super` property access is its own class-related syntax that isn't related. I
>do think it sets a perfectly reasonable guideline that makes it clear most
>people have no problem accessing properties off of keywords.
I fail to see where you see guidelines specced out in the specifications of
metaproperties or superproperties. “Most people” end up just stuck with these
because they are either unaware that these changes are coming or are not active
enough to voice their concerns.
> The biggest issue for me in this whole thread is that it's all extremely
> opinion-based. What one person calls complex another would call elegant.
The thing is, I clearly provide arguments in favour of my opinion. Let me just
summarise them for you.
We now have:
- keywords that are just keywords, really (typeof, case, break, etc.)
- keywords that are just keywords, but don’t even exist in a language. They are
reserved for future use in various contexts: always reserved, only in strict
mode, only in module code etc. (enum, public, private, await etc.). May never
be used and may possibly be removed, as some keywords have been (int, byte,
char etc.)
- literals that are basically keywords (null, true, false)
- non-keywords that are for all intents and purposes keywords (eval, arguments)
- keywords that look like objects (because they have additional properties)
which are not objects (new with new.target)
- keywords that look like functions (because they are invoked like functions
and return values like functions) which are not functions (import and import())
- keywords that look like objects *and* functions but are neither (import and
import() and import.meta)
It gets even worse. Because “metaproperties” are not just attached to keywords.
They are attached to keywords which have *fundamentally different semantics* in
the language:
- `new` is an operator[2], it gets `new.target`
- A function is a callable object [3], and it gets a `function.sent`
- import is … I don’t know what import is. It gets transformed into a separate,
made-just-for-import CallExpression and then it gets an `import.meta` on top of
that (as a hardcoded “metaproperty”).
All of the above are basic facts about the language as it exists now. How can
adding “properties” to semantically fundamentally different things elegant? Or
increasing the number of extremely context-dependent things? Or overriding
existing keywords with new and exceedingly confusing behaviours?
> > So there’s really *nothing* stopping you from designing a proper
> > System/Module/Loader/Introspect/Avocado or any subset thereof instead of
> > slapping “metaproperties” on everything in sight :)
>
> I don't think anyone has claimed that `import.meta` is meant as a replacement
> for these. We still need a loader spec
and a System spec and an Introspect spec, and ... That is why all these random
additions to vastly different things in the language look like ad-hoc
shortsighted solutions with no respect for the language or its evolution. “We
need a thing, we have nowhere to put this thing, let’s add this thing to a
keyword, because new.target (bad design) has opened a door for us”.
> I'd _much_ rather have a static syntactically-defined way to access that
> information over a magically-populated not-quite-global variable like
> `Introspect.context.sent`.
Riiiight. Because import.meta is not a magically-populated not-quite-global
variable. Oh. Wait. That’s *exactly* what it is.
Even though it’s worse. import is a
not-really-a-function-not-really-an-object-not-really-a-static-not-really-a-dynamic-keyword
which is clearly far worse than a properly defined API.
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 at 22:37 Logan Smyth
<
mailto:Logan Smyth <loganfsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
a, pre, code, a:link, body { word-wrap: break-word !important; }
`await` could be added because there is no case in existing code where `await
<expression>` would have been valid code, so it is backward-compatible. The
same applies for all of the meta-property proposals. The same is not true for
`Introspect.context.module`. It's not just a question of it a given construct
could be made to behave the way you want, it's also a question of it it would
be compatible with existing code.
> Introduced in ECMASCRIPT 2015: Reflect is a built-in object that provides
> methods for interceptable JavaScript operations.
Not a breaking change because adding a new global isn't new syntax, it's just a
new variable that exists and essentially can't break much.
> Introduced in ECMASCRIPT 2015: The Symbol() function returns a value of type
> symbol, has static properties that expose several members of built-in
> objects, has static methods that expose the global symbol registry, and
> resembles a built-in object class but is incomplete as a constructor because
> it does not support the syntax "new Symbol()”.
Not a breaking change because this constructor did not exist before.
> ECMAScript 5 introduced: yield, let
Not a breaking change because those two can only occur in locations where they
can't conflict with existing ES5 code. The extremely limited cases where `let`
_could_ be in conflict are explicitly handled in the grammar to prevent
breaking changes.
> ECMASCRIPT 6 introduced: await as a reserved word in module code
Same as above.
> So, introducting new things into the language is not really such a big
> problem as it’s made out to be ;)
No-one said introducing things was not possible, but we can't break existing
code.
>
Don’t forget that `super` gets its own properties. Since there’s no
specification of what “metaproperties” are, they are just called
superproperties[7] in the grammar. Because reasons.
I don't think I'd call super properties metaproperties for this reason. `super`
property access is its own class-related syntax that isn't related.
I do think it sets a perfectly reasonable guideline that makes it clear most
people have no problem accessing properties off of keywords.
>
The problem with “metaproperties” is that they make the language more complex,
chaotic and make it difficult to reason about the language.
This seems to be the core of your argument, but I honestly don't quite see why
it is more complex/chaotic. The biggest issue for me in this whole thread is
that it's all extremely opinion-based. What one person calls complex another
would call elegant.
What specifically is difficult to reason about that wasn't already complex?
Same for `function.arguments`. You're saying you think it's better to have an
automatically-created `arguments` variable in every single function instead of
having syntax to access it? `arguments` and `this` as two auto-initialized
bindings are some of the most confusing parts of JS.
>
So there’s really *nothing* stopping you from designing a proper
System/Module/Loader/
Introspect/Avocado or any subset thereof instead of slapping “metaproperties”
on everything in sight :)
I don't think anyone has claimed that `import.meta` is meant as a replacement
for these. We still need a loader spec, but having a syntactic way to access
data about the current active module is absolutely a useful thing to have. It's
no different than CommonJS's __dirname and __filename among others. The logic
for implementing a loader is separate from the logic for defining the behavior
of module execution itself.
I'd _much_ rather have a static syntactically-defined way to access that
information over a magically-populated not-quite-global variable like `
Introspect.context.sent`. In a perfect world absolutely `module` could have
been a keyword, but at this point making that change seems like an absolute
no-go because it could easily break existing code.
>
Like look. function.sent?? Really? And it’s extremely highly context-specific:
“function.sent can appear anywhere a YieldExpress would be legal. Referencing
function.sent outside of a GeneratorBody is a Syntax Error.”
It's the exact same context-specific behavior as `yield` and they are both tied
to generator functions. How is that in any way unexpected?
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt
<
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
>
wrote:
I just realised that there is also the argument that “global object cannot get
current context” and other limitations applied to whether a theoretical
“System/Module/Loader/
Introspect” would be a global module, or object, or keyword, or any
(potentially context-sensitive) combination of these.
However, this all basically depends on what you specify in the standard,
doesn’t it? :)
- Dynamic import has a “forbidden extensions” section[1] and how it should work
when it’s invoked as a CallExpression [2]
- import.meta has a full section describing how the runtime should behave when
encountering this particular property[3]
- new global objects like Reflect, Proxy, Symbol have specifications on what
they are and hoe they should be treated [4]
A theoretical global object/keyword/identifier/
special form X could be specified as <object/keyword/identifier/
avocado>. X.someProperty: when encountered, let context be Ctx, let A be B, and
C be B, populate with properties from here and there and everywhere.
Or look at the AwaitExpression[5]. There are specific limits in place to guard
where and how it’s used and when it is to be evaluated as AwaitExpression.
So there’s really *nothing* stopping you from designing a proper
System/Module/Loader/
Introspect/Avocado or any subset thereof instead of slapping “metaproperties”
on everything in sight :)
Like look. function.sent?? Really? And it’s extremely highly context-specific:
“function.sent can appear anywhere a YieldExpress would be legal. Referencing
function.sent outside of a GeneratorBody is a Syntax Error.” [6]
Look. Here’s a proposal: `Introspect.context.sent can appear anywhere a
YieldExpress would be legal. Referencing Introspect.context.sent outside of a
GeneratorBody is a Syntax Error.` And then you can use
`Introspect.context.target` instead of `new.target`.
`Introspect.context.module` instead of `import.meta`. Clean. Reasonable.
Extensible. Future-proof.
[1]
https://tc39.github.io/proposal-dynamic-import/#sec-forbidden-extensions
[2]
https://tc39.github.io/proposal-dynamic-import/#sec-import-calls
[3]
https://tc39.github.io/proposal-import-meta/#sec-source-text-module-records
[4]
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-reflection
,
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-proxy-objects
,
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-symbol-objects
[5]
https://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#prod-AwaitExpression
[6]
https://github.com/allenwb/ESideas/blob/master/Generator%20metaproperty.md
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 at 20:40
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
<
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
> wrote:
The problem with “metaproperties” is that they make the language more complex,
chaotic and make it difficult to reason about the language.
See my previous post about the multitude of keyword and keyword-like types that
the language has. It’s so bad that even “metaproperty” concept itself isn’t
defined in the standard except as a hardcoded `new.target` [1]
If you read, for example, through the import.meta draft, you see things ripe
for inclusion in a proper API object.
It gets even worse. Because “metaproperties” are not just attached to keywords.
They are attached to keywords which have *fundamentally different semantics* in
the language: `new` is an operator[2], it gets `new.target`. A function is a
callable object [3], and it gets a `function.sent`. Import is … I don’t know
what import is [4]. It gets transformed into a separate, made-just-for-import
CallExpression[5] and then it gets an `import.meta` on top of that [6] (as a
hardcoded “metaproperty").
Don’t forget that `super` gets its own properties. Since there’s no
specification of what “metaproperties” are, they are just called
superproperties[7] in the grammar. Because reasons.
All this is chaos from the perspective of developer experience. And truly looks
like random ad-hoc solutions to immediate problems with no long-term goals.
Imagine how much better *and* future-proof it would be if all this was in the
form of a unified centralised API? There is a reason people laugh at PHP for
its API and language design.
[1]
https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#sec-meta-properties
[2]
https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-new-operator
[3]
https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-terms-and-definitions-function
[4]
https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-imports
[5]
https://tc39.github.io/proposal-dynamic-import/#sec-left-hand-side-expressions
[6]
https://tc39.github.io/proposal-import-meta/#sec-left-hand-side-expressions
[7]
https://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/#sec-left-hand-side-expressions
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 at 18:59 Matthew Robb
<
mailto:matthew+robb+%3cmatthewwr...@gmail.com%3E
> wrote:
I really can't find a good resource on direct vs indirect evaluation but my
understanding is it's one of the main considerations for using a keyword over
an identifier for contextual information. One example which is already in the
language would be 'eval' which you can read a little about here:
http://2ality.com/2014/01/eval.html
Now you might be able to have an API that gets you the same result as the
context sensitive keywords but it would be less ergonomic among other things:
Reflect.getModuleMetaProperty(
someModuleNs, 'propName') but this becomes much more difficult to do FROM
WITHIN THE MODULE ITSELF. Anything that is, let's call it tangible, cannot
receive implicit contextual information it must have something passed to it
that it would use to look up said information.
Sure there could be arguments made about introducing new environment type
records to the top level module scope of all modules but this is potentially
much more error prone and likely to lead to more and bigger questions down the
road. 'module' in particular is a really bad choice imo as node/commonjs have
already introduced a 'module' identifier into all of their module scopes hence
`module.exports = ...`. There may be solutions to working around that in one
form or another BUT the 'trend' in TC39 to use keyword meta properties for
context sensitive information is to avoid solving ever edge case of conflict
that would impact existing code and users. It really is a fairly ripe space for
powerful and ergonomic features like `super` which feel like "magic". The same
is true for import.meta but it may be harder to identify right off as the uses
haven't all been fully introduced such as environment specific properties and
potentialy other loader hooks.
NOW as I was writing this it came to mind that we DO have a new syntactic form
for private data coming in the form of private fields which use a hash prefix.
It would be interesting to explore using the same syntax for module scoped
private fields:
```js
console.log(#dirname);
```
- Matthew Robb
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt
<
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
>
wrote:
Too bad emails don’t have "thumbs up" and “+1”s :) So here’s my "+1” to you
On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 at 18:28 "T.J. Crowder"
<
">"T.J. Crowder"
> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt
<
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
> wrote:
> So, in my opinion, the argument for not adding new global entities
> such as System, or Module, or Loader (or heck, even all three of
> them) being “these are not keywords, we can’t introduce them” is
> really really weak.
Is anyone making that argument? I certainly am not. Not only is it possible to
add more global entities, as you point out, it's been done repeatedly:
`Symbol`, `Reflect`, etc. They just can't be *keywords* without breaking
things. They have to be identifiers. Which means they have bindings with
values. Which means those values can be copied. Which has implications.
On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Dmitrii Dimandt
<
mailto:dmit...@dmitriid.com
> wrote:
>
> That’s not what I was really aiming at :)
>
> The original concern was “to get ‘module’ : 1. It's a
> context-sensitive keyword, and code that's using it needs to
> be updated when migrated to a module. “
>
> I was just pointing out that ‘import’ is already a context-
> sensitive keyword (as are a bunch of others, like super.
> Is super a keyword BTW?)
My point was that this would be the only case I know of where it would be a
keyword in one context but an identifier in another in the *exact same
production*. `super`, `import`, etc., are **always** keywords. You just can't
use them except in certain contexts. So I shouldn't have said
"context-sensitive keyword" so much as "keyword or identifier depending on
context." (But then...I did, earlier; I figured the shorthand was okay after
spelling it out longhand. :-) )
But again: Maybe that's feasible. Or maybe it's not a problem passing the value
around, in which case a predefined `module` identifier only in module code
isn't a problem anyway.
-- T.J. Crowder
______________________________
_________________
es-discuss mailing list
mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
