On Aug 20, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: >> question arises: How would ad-hoc transient properties be set or >> initialized in any old object? > With classes being available, why not provide a pathway for > developers to > define transience correctly in proper OO manner that would be > serialization > method agnostic, rather than adding a blacklisted array parameter to > toJSONString, which IMHO is very poor and shortsighted way of defining > transient/temporary keys?
Proper OO beliefs aside, you could justify lots of annotations other than type annotations for things like serialization, documentation, etc. We have a deferred proposal for documentation, for example: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:documentation So yeah, one might want both class Foo { transient var bar: ... } and let obj = {transient baz: 42, ... }; > I thought that dropping namespace qualifier had already been > decided on. We're not done with this proposal, and anyway we revisit decisions when there's good reason. > Is > this still in question? I certainly agree that dropping namespaces > seems > dangerous, and when I asked before it was suggested that there > could just > simply be multiple identical keys in a JSON serialization output. > Seems a > little odd to stringify to something that is not even coherent JSON. I agree. /be _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
