On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Right, I get that, and Brendan's point was a good one. I was
> > just thrown by the fact that I hadn't seen an example of
> >
> > class A {
> > var public::count = 10;
> > }
> >
> > rather than
> >
> > class A {
> > public var count = 10;
> > }
> >
> > But if the former is legal (and the grammar suggests that it
> > is), then there's no inconsistency.
>
> It is not legal, and if the grammar suggests that it is then
> the grammar is buggy.
Okay, so why is it a good thing to mandate a different syntax for
defining an object property in an initializer, on one hand, and
defining a property of a class instance, on the other? Don't get me
wrong: I understand the utility of allowing the "public var count =
..." syntax, where 'var' in interposed between the two parts of the
name. What I don't understand is why you wouldn't want a single,
canonical syntax for expressing names in definitions. "public var
count": could just be sugar for "var public::count". Or does that
raise other problems...?
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
