On Jul 16, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Jul 15, 2008, at 11:50 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> * getProperty and getProperties seem misnamed in light of common >> usage of "get", "[[Get]]", "getProperty", etc. all connoting value- >> getting, not descriptor-getting. getPropertyDescriptor is a bit >> long, but not fatally so. Worth renaming? > > Shorter alternative verbs to "get": lookup, query. The analogy is > lookup : define :: get : put.
That was unclear, sorry. I meant to suggest that "lookupProperty" is a shorter alternative to "getPropertyDescriptor". Using "lookup" or "query" relieves the need for "Descriptor" at the end to disambiguate value- from descriptor-getting. So: // returns descriptor if (name in obj), else null or something falsy [1] Object.lookupProperty(obj, name) It's still longer than Object.getProperty, but Object.getProperty seems like a misnomer every time I read it, since it does not do a [[Get]] or [[GetProperty]]. ECMA-262 does not need more overloadings of "get-property" names. Similar comments apply to Object.getOwnProperty. /be [1] The 15 July 2008 draft specifies false, not null, as the return value of Object.getProperty(O, P) when !(P in O) -- is this intended? _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
