Speaking of Lisp...

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Fri Jan 5 18:47:13 PST 2007

On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Peter Hall wrote:

> While identifiers can be QNames, does that automatically mean that
> it's useful to use QNames for hash keys? Probably not.

It's not clear to me whether E4X *requires* QNames as hash keys.  One  
way of reading it (when I implemented it) says "yes".

> But, even so, I don't see a big barrier if qualified keys were
> required. For QNames with non-empty namespace URI, there would be no
> pollution problem and for unqualified keys you could add a prefix to
> prevent collision with Object.prototype.

One often wants a hash from string to value, no QNames or namespaces  

> Something like AS3's Proxy object would mean you could encanpsulate
> that implementation quite cleanly too. I'd prefer to see AS3's Proxy
> and Dictionary classes added to ES4 before more strange syntax - ES4
> is already filling up with a lot of new notations and concepts, that
> would be unfamiliar and difficult to many existing JS/AS developers.

Let's not get stuck on syntax -- I made up #{...} because I know of  
use-cases for an object initialiser where Object.prototype does not  
pollute the hash.  Whether you have to use B&D-language class-ical  
OOP, or lighter-weight JS object "literal" syntax, we can wave off  
(ok, I'm baiting/teasing a little in this sentence ;-).

Sounds like one vote for a Dictionary class.  Could you cite some  
URLs documenting Proxy and Dictionary from the Flex SDK (I'm assuming  
these are not "AS3" but "host" types).


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list