Re: Symbol history
> As far as the spec is concerned...
>
> Symbols were introduced in draft 12 of ES6.
> They were defined as a kind of exotic object, stateless and immutable.
>
> In draft 15, Symbol became a primitive type.
> In draft 16, it went back to being a kind of exotic object.
> In draft 19, it went back to being a primitive type.
can i ask why they were changed to primitive-type instead of exotic-object?
what are the disadvantages of keeping symbols as objects (with an extra
Object.isSymbol subtype-check)?
because one obvious advantage from what i see, is to avoid breaking
backwards-compatibility with previously stable-code (since es1 in 1997 [1])
that rely on typeof checks:
```js
if (typeof foo === ...) {
...
} else {
// break backwards-compatibility with stable-code since es1
// due to unexpected symbol-case
...
}
```
[1] ECMA-262, 1st edition, June 1997
https://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST-ARCH/ECMA-262,%201st%20edition,%20June%201997.pdf
kai zhu
kaizhu...@gmail.com
> On 29 May 2018, at 3:33 PM, T.J. Crowder
> wrote:
>
> Thanks all!
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Michael Dyck > wrote:
> > As far as the spec is concerned...
>
> Thanks. Sorry Michael, I should have been more clear: I'm talking about the
> history _leading up_ to the spec.
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > wrote:
> > That's a pretty good summary
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 2:51 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock > wrote:
> > A good starting point for researching the history is:
> > https://web.archive.org/web/20110505015255/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names
> >
> >
>
> Thanks Allen. If the summary was good enough, that's as much detail as I need
> to get into.
>
> Thanks again all!
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
Thanks all! On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Michael Dyck wrote: > As far as the spec is concerned... Thanks. Sorry Michael, I should have been more clear: I'm talking about the history _leading up_ to the spec. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > That's a pretty good summary On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 2:51 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > A good starting point for researching the history is: > https://web.archive.org/web/20110505015255/http://wiki. ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names Thanks Allen. If the summary was good enough, that's as much detail as I need to get into. Thanks again all! -- T.J. Crowder ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
A good starting point for researching the history is: https://web.archive.org/web/20110505015255/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names And the pages it links to. On May 28, 2018, 4:43 PM, at 4:43 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >For a while TC39 considered syntactic support for referencing >Symbol-keyed properties. EG: > >let pri = new Symbol; >obj.@pri = 42; > >When we realized that symbols weren't private enough, we decided that [ >] would suffice. > >At that point using Symbols for "soft private" was no more convenient >and perhaps less then just using a _ prefix to be indicate >soft-private. > > >On May 28, 2018, 4:10 PM, at 4:10 PM, Mike Samuel > wrote: >>https://esdiscuss.org/topic/private-slots >>""" >>Allen Wirfs-Brock (5 years ago) >> >>As further evidence, the word "private" does not even occur in >sections >>8.1.6 and 8.1.6.1 of the current ES6 draft. These are the sections >that >>define the ES6 object model. Small changes and additions had to be >made >>to >>allow for property keys to be either strings or symbols but those >>changes >>are independent of whether a symbol is private or not. The only place >>that >>the privateness of a symbol comes into play (besides in proxies) is in >>the >>context of a few reflection operations whose behavior is predicated >>upon >>whether a symbol property key is a private symbol or not. This is very >>similar to the tests that the same or similar operations make on >>individual >>property attributes. >>""" >>I don't know when Object.getOwnPropertySymbols made symbols useless >for >>private-like symbols, bit IIUC, 5 years ago they were kind of being >>advanced for both to allow properties visible only to a symbol holder >>and >>for cooperative namespace separation. >> >> >> >>On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Mark Miller >wrote: >> >>> There was at some point an attempt at elaborating "symbol" into some >>kind >>> of "private name" or "private symbol", which failed for well >>explained >>> reasons. However, this is not where symbols started. Symbols started >>as a >>> way to introduce new properties while avoiding conflict with >possible >>> property names, IOW, as a way to introduce new property "names" that >>were >>> guaranteed not to collide with any existing names. This is still >>their >>> primary purpose. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, T.J. Crowder < >>> tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many >>who were actively involved are on the list, so: Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then >>over time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the >privacy >>aspect was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, >>and found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of >>adding a default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with >>existing code in the wild? Thanks, -- T.J. Crowder ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> --MarkM >>> >>> ___ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>___ >>es-discuss mailing list >>es-discuss@mozilla.org >>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > >___ >es-discuss mailing list >es-discuss@mozilla.org >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
That's a pretty good summary Sent from BlueMail On May 28, 2018, 2:09 PM, at 2:09 PM, "T.J. Crowder" wrote: >Hi all, > >I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many who >were >actively involved are on the list, so: > >Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then over >time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the privacy >aspect >was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, and >found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of >adding a >default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with >existing >code in the wild? > >Thanks, > >-- T.J. Crowder > > > > >___ >es-discuss mailing list >es-discuss@mozilla.org >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
For a while TC39 considered syntactic support for referencing Symbol-keyed properties. EG: let pri = new Symbol; obj.@pri = 42; When we realized that symbols weren't private enough, we decided that [ ] would suffice. At that point using Symbols for "soft private" was no more convenient and perhaps less then just using a _ prefix to be indicate soft-private. On May 28, 2018, 4:10 PM, at 4:10 PM, Mike Samuel wrote: >https://esdiscuss.org/topic/private-slots >""" >Allen Wirfs-Brock (5 years ago) > >As further evidence, the word "private" does not even occur in sections >8.1.6 and 8.1.6.1 of the current ES6 draft. These are the sections that >define the ES6 object model. Small changes and additions had to be made >to >allow for property keys to be either strings or symbols but those >changes >are independent of whether a symbol is private or not. The only place >that >the privateness of a symbol comes into play (besides in proxies) is in >the >context of a few reflection operations whose behavior is predicated >upon >whether a symbol property key is a private symbol or not. This is very >similar to the tests that the same or similar operations make on >individual >property attributes. >""" >I don't know when Object.getOwnPropertySymbols made symbols useless for >private-like symbols, bit IIUC, 5 years ago they were kind of being >advanced for both to allow properties visible only to a symbol holder >and >for cooperative namespace separation. > > > >On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> There was at some point an attempt at elaborating "symbol" into some >kind >> of "private name" or "private symbol", which failed for well >explained >> reasons. However, this is not where symbols started. Symbols started >as a >> way to introduce new properties while avoiding conflict with possible >> property names, IOW, as a way to introduce new property "names" that >were >> guaranteed not to collide with any existing names. This is still >their >> primary purpose. >> >> >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, T.J. Crowder < >> tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many >who >>> were actively involved are on the list, so: >>> >>> Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then >over >>> time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the privacy >aspect >>> was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, >and >>> found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of >adding a >>> default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with >existing >>> code in the wild? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- T.J. Crowder >>> >>> ___ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> es-discuss@mozilla.org >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> --MarkM >> >> ___ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > > >___ >es-discuss mailing list >es-discuss@mozilla.org >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
There was at some point an attempt at elaborating "symbol" into some kind of "private name" or "private symbol", which failed for well explained reasons. However, this is not where symbols started. Symbols started as a way to introduce new properties while avoiding conflict with possible property names, IOW, as a way to introduce new property "names" that were guaranteed not to collide with any existing names. This is still their primary purpose. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, T.J. Crowder < tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many who > were actively involved are on the list, so: > > Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then over > time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the privacy aspect > was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, and > found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of adding a > default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with existing > code in the wild? > > Thanks, > > -- T.J. Crowder > > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
https://esdiscuss.org/topic/private-slots """ Allen Wirfs-Brock (5 years ago) As further evidence, the word "private" does not even occur in sections 8.1.6 and 8.1.6.1 of the current ES6 draft. These are the sections that define the ES6 object model. Small changes and additions had to be made to allow for property keys to be either strings or symbols but those changes are independent of whether a symbol is private or not. The only place that the privateness of a symbol comes into play (besides in proxies) is in the context of a few reflection operations whose behavior is predicated upon whether a symbol property key is a private symbol or not. This is very similar to the tests that the same or similar operations make on individual property attributes. """ I don't know when Object.getOwnPropertySymbols made symbols useless for private-like symbols, bit IIUC, 5 years ago they were kind of being advanced for both to allow properties visible only to a symbol holder and for cooperative namespace separation. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > There was at some point an attempt at elaborating "symbol" into some kind > of "private name" or "private symbol", which failed for well explained > reasons. However, this is not where symbols started. Symbols started as a > way to introduce new properties while avoiding conflict with possible > property names, IOW, as a way to introduce new property "names" that were > guaranteed not to collide with any existing names. This is still their > primary purpose. > > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM, T.J. Crowder < > tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many who >> were actively involved are on the list, so: >> >> Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then over >> time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the privacy aspect >> was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, and >> found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of adding a >> default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with existing >> code in the wild? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- T.J. Crowder >> >> ___ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > ___ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Symbol history
Hi all, I've tried to glean this from the meeting notes and such, but many who were actively involved are on the list, so: Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then over time their name was changed, they became primitives, and the privacy aspect was dropped; but having guaranteed-unique values was still useful, and found application (amongst other places) in solving the problem of adding a default iterator to `Array.prototype` without name conflicts with existing code in the wild? Thanks, -- T.J. Crowder ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Symbol history
On 2018-05-28 02:09 PM, T.J. Crowder wrote: Am I right that Symbols started out as "private Name objects" then over time their name was changed, they became primitives, As far as the spec is concerned... Symbols were introduced in draft 12 of ES6. They were defined as a kind of exotic object, stateless and immutable. In draft 15, Symbol became a primitive type. In draft 16, it went back to being a kind of exotic object. In draft 19, it went back to being a primitive type. You can find the drafts here: http://web.archive.org/web/20131017074027/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts -Michael ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
