On 9 July 2011 00:24, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jul 8, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
One minor suggestion I'd have is to treat names as a proper new
primitive type, i.e. typeof key == name, not object. That way, it
can be defined much more cleanly what a name is,
On Jul 9, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
See above, there is nothing novel or evil in isName or isArray (another
example) isGenerator.
Also the Proxy.isTrapping, which in recent threads has been proposed to be
renamed to
On Jul 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
A consideration here is that whatever conventions we follow sets a precedent
for user written code. I don't think we want to encourage the addition of
such classification functions to Object or Object.prototype. So from that
Might it be reasonable to make private properties be regular properties on
the object, with a new 'private' attribute, similar to the existing
writable/configurable attributes? From the perspective of code outside of
the associated class, an instance's private property would be
On Jul 9, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
... However, if that isn't your concern (and my perspective is that in most
cases it shouldn't be) you might as well use a public
On Jul 9, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Jul 9, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
... However, if that isn't your concern (and my perspective is that in most
cases
6 matches
Mail list logo
