On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Lars Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri
>
> > Sent: 11. april 2008 09:26
> > To: Lars Hansen
>
> > Cc: [email protected]; liorean
> > Subject: Re: Strict mode recap
> >
>
>
> > 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...?
>
> As I wrote earlier, the canoncial cases are { id: 10 } and { ns::id: 10
> },
> where the property is dynamic. "var" and "const" are flags that make
> the
> properties into fixtures. Having to split ns::id apart to interpolate
> "var" does not appeal to me (at least).
>
> I think you're getting hung up on the keyword. We could choose another
> keyword here to serve as the flag: { fixture ns::id: 10 } and there
> would
> not be a problem with that change particularly, but it also doesn't seem
> to
> serve any particularly good purpose to do so.
>
> In other words
>
> fixture { x: 10, y: 20 } // instead of var
> { fixture x: 10, y: 20 } // x is a fixture, not y
>
> and
>
> readonly { x: 10, y: 20 } // instead of const
> { readonly x: 10, y: 20 } // x is a readonly fixture, not y
>
> and so on. Did we gain anything in clarity? Would we, if even
> better keywords were chosen?
>
> --lars
No -- I agree with everything you wrote here. I like this syntax.
The question is: why not apply it to classes, too?
By the way, I was wrong about the grammar allowing
var public::count = ...
in classes. It doesn't. But why not allow it there and consider it
canonical? (Doesn't 'var' also indicate that the property is a
fixture in a class definition, too? It's not part of the name,
anyway.)
I'm not suggesting allowing
public var count: ...
in object initializers. I think Brendan's reply to me on that was decisive.
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
