On 2008-04-07, at 12:25 EDT, Lars Hansen wrote:
But there is a mixture of constrained and unconstrained
defaults in our current choices
FWIW, Dylan used only sealed/open for classes and methods and had the
interesting default that classes and methods were open within a module
(the
I'm late to the party here, but agree 100% with Steven's point that a
language cannot create security.
In Dylan, we called the need to declare to get dynamic-ness pay as
you go. The programmer is made aware, by requiring a non-default
declaration, that the feature asked for costs more.
If
On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:10 PM, Kris Zyp wrote:
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
'final' already means can't be overridden for methods and can't be
extended by subclassing for classes in several languages. Adding another
meaning, even if it's of the same mood, seems like a bad idea to me.
What's the point of your request? If you mean to promote AOP
I don't know what
Making classes dynamic by default is likely to make the
verifier -- what we previously called strict mode --
less effective, because a reference o.x cannot be flagged
as an error unless o is known to be an instance of a
sealed class that doesn't have an 'x'; if classes are
sealed by default
On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:
Dynamic classes also incur nontrivial overhead in memory use and
runtime
performance. IMHO we'd want a fairly compelling argument for making
all
classes dynamic by default.
It would probably put an end to the acrimony about ES4 being
It would probably put an end to the acrimony about ES4 being too
different from ES3; I'm hesitant to speak for the views of others, but
I suspect this change would make the language a lot more palatable for
many currently opposed to it. In that light, compelling is going to
be a highly
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Hansen
Sent: 7. april 2008 10:25
... Kris is suggesting that classes should not be dynamic by
default ...
Of course what Kris is suggesting that classes *should* be
dynamic by default. The
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Neil Mix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Steven Johnson wrote:
Dynamic classes also incur nontrivial overhead in memory use and
runtime
performance. IMHO we'd want a fairly compelling argument for making
all
classes dynamic
