On 06/04/2008, at 1:38 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Sure,
developers will be able to explicitly mark areas in their code which
they deem appropriate for another developer to change, but that
strikes me as a bit of a fantasy land.
The fantasy here would be that JS has been kept down on the same-
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Peter Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want mutability, you can define methods as vars in the first place.
class Foo {
// can be modified on a per-instance basis
public var f : function (a:T):S = function (a:T):S {
return null;
}
}
A
Since you grant use-cases for sealing objects against mutation, are
you simply arguing about what the default should be (that 'dynamic
class' should not be required to get an extensible-instance factory,
that 'class' should do that)?
Well if it is up for debate... Can we have classes be
On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 13:07 -0700, Brendan Eich wrote:
You're doing it again: wholesale locking down is false as a general
statement, and almost entirely false broken down into particulars.
You're right, wholesale locking down is false. However, it is the
migration path for developers who
Please find attached a draft spec that describes how names are structured
and resolved in ES4. This is the first of several fundamental sections on
the core language. As such it might seem lacking for context. At this early
stage of review please use your imagination as much as possible to fill in
