> -----Original Message----- > From: P T Withington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > P T Withington > Sent: 21. mars 2008 04:58 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: Mark S. Miller; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ES4 draft: Name > > On 2008-03-20, at 23:07 EDT, Lars Hansen wrote: > > Names depend on object identity insofar as some namespace values are
> > equal only to themselves. I don't know how serialization is a problem > > that figures into this, though clearly some namespaces values can't be > > printed and then reconstituted in the language. > > Maybe the question is: "Why do we need un-interned Names"? Interning feels like it's beside the point but I think we're talking about the same thing: should the programmer be able to alway recreate any namespace value from its string representation? Answering that in the negative, we've taken the approach that unforgeable namespaces is one of two mechanisms the language has for making properties and bindings inaccessible (the other being lexical scope). I think we've had the discussion before: are namespaces only for organization or do they also provide some sort of integrity/hiding? We've gone with the latter; it introduces complexity in some corners (enumerability, reflection) but feels more useful in practice. Forgeable (interned) namespaces are still available for serialization. --lars _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
