On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:36 AM, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm confused as to why an API is being proposed which clashes with existing
> JavaScript-style APIs. The one case that I had seen previously, at least
> related to the implementation within Mozilla, is that it would look something
> like:
>
> Object.defineProperty(obj, name, value,
> Object.NOT_WRITABLE | Object.NOT_ITERABLE | Object.NOT_DELETABLE)
>
> Which makes much more sense than the proposal (not forcing the user to
> create temporary objects just to insert values).
Hi John,
My impression had been that the bit-field API style, which I had
previously advocated, was also rejected on the same grounds: that it
conflicts with JS style APIs. Instead, people were talking about a
bunch of positional boolean flag parameters, which is a call-site
readability disaster:
Object.defineProperty(obj, name, value, true, false, true)
Say what?
I do find the descriptor proposals more readable than the bit-field
proposals. Also, the descriptor proposals can more naturally
distinguish beween true, false, and left-out-so-use-default. There's
no pleasant enough way to do three valued logic with bit fields.
--
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
