> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri > Sent: 25. mars 2008 10:30 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: ES4 draft: the global object > > I think I need to understand the following before I can > comprehend the rest: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Lars Hansen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Note also that > > > > eval(s) > > > > is the same as > > > > null::eval(s) > > > > so arguments about 'namespaced operators' are probably not right. > > Not right in what sense? I'm not sure whether you're > claiming that the operator form of intrinsic::eval isn't a > namespaced operator (in which case, how is it not a pun?) or > that it's not the *only* namespaced operator. (Or maybe you > mean something else entirely...)
I mean that all names are in some namespace, and the name you think of as "isNaN" is really "null::isNaN", where null represents a "compatibility namespace", to pick something less ambiguous than "eval". > Is the following legal ES4: > > (x null::< y) > > (I would have thought no.) Not at present, and not previously. > Do operator identifiers (like '<') name syntactic bindings? No. > Or maybe the term 'operator' is being used equivocally here? Operator in the sense that '<' is syntax that causes the language implementation to operated upon values, but there is no operator overloading and no syntactic bindings for operators at present. (They were in for a while, and operators were in the intrinsic namespace: intrinsic::=== for example.) --lars _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
