-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This sounds great, but doesn't this kind of violate referential
transparency? The following function has always worked as expected:
function foo(){
var obj = {bar:hello}; // assuming quoting names are strings
alert(obj.bar);
}
foo();
until is
This sounds great, but doesn't this kind of violate referential
transparency?
That's a loaded criticism. JS doesn't have referential transparency in any
meaningful sense. But it does generalize the meaning of the dot-operator to be
sensitive to scoping operators, that's true.
Couldn't the
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
function Point(x, y) {
private x, y;
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
...
}
than
function Point(x, y) {
var _x = gensym(), _y = gensym();
this[_x] = x;
this[_y] =
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Kris Kowal kris.ko...@cixar.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
function Point(x, y) {
private x, y;
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
...
}
than
function Point(x, y)
Ø Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo are precisely identical in all contexts.
This is true when the string contains a is a legal identifier and false
otherwise. The [] syntax is a superset of the '.' syntax. The proposal
preserves this through the use of # expression, e.g.,
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo are precisely identical in all contexts.
This regularity helps understandability. The terseness difference above is
not an adequate reason to sacrifice it.
Aren't you proposing the same syntax x[i] where
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo are precisely identical in all
contexts. This regularity helps understandability. The terseness difference
above is not an adequate
Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps?
Dave
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Currently is JS, x['foo'] and
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:51 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps?
Semantically, yes. However, as a library, they cannot benefit from the
extraordinary efforts of all JavaScript engines to optimize inherited
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names_vs_soft_fields
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo are precisely identical in all
contexts. This regularity helps understandability. The terseness difference
above is not an adequate
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:51 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps?
Semantically, yes. However, as a library, they cannot benefit from the
extraordinary efforts
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:51 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps?
Semantically, yes.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
This does *not* mean soft fields and private names are mutually exclusive and
locked in some there can be only one! Highlander contest.
I'll address this last point first, since this seems to be the core issue.
The question I am raising
At this point, I'll just mention that this response seems overly emotional,
filled with name calling, and seemingly disconnected from the case I'm
actually making. (For example, I never said that soft fields would be more
or as efficient as names. Merely that, if primitive, they could benefit from
I'll address this last point first, since this seems to be the core issue.
The question I am raising is: given soft fields, why do we need private names?
I didn't see that asked as a question; I saw it asserted, but not opened for
discussion.
And I disagree. Now, I happen to think it's not
On Dec 16, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
At this point, I'll just mention that this response seems overly emotional,
On the contrary.
filled with name calling,
No.
Calling a specification obscure and tortured is not name-calling in any
personal sense. However, if you think I've
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:03 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
I'll address this last point first, since this seems to be the core
issue. The question I am raising is: given soft fields, why do we need
private names?
I didn't see that asked as a question; I saw it asserted, but
On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Really, it's starting to feel like Survivor or American Idol
around here. The apples to oranges death-matching has to stop.
I don't mind a good deathmatch as long as it ends in death.
We will soon be at the point where we need to start culling the strawmen
so
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:24 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
Ok, I open it for discussion. Given soft fields, why do we need private
names?
I believe that the syntax is a big part of the private names proposal. It's
key to the usability: in my view, the proposal adds 1) a new
On 2010-12-17 01:24, David Herman wrote:
Mark Miller wrote:
Ok, I open it for discussion. Given soft fields, why do we need private
names?
I believe that the syntax is a big part of the private names proposal. It's
key to the usability: in my view, the proposal adds 1) a new abstraction to
On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:11 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
On 2010-12-17 01:24, David Herman wrote:
Mark Miller wrote:
Ok, I open it for discussion. Given soft fields, why do we need private
names?
I believe that the syntax is a big part of the private names proposal. It's
key to the
On Dec 17, 2010 2:14 AM, Douglas Crockford doug...@crockford.com wrote:
On 11:59 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Really, it's starting to feel like Survivor or American Idol around
here. The apples to oranges death-matching has to stop.
I don't mind a good deathmatch as long as it ends in death.
23 matches
Mail list logo
