Cedric at OpenDomain.Org
Wed Mar 26 16:47:25 PDT 2008
I admit to being a lurker and a bit of a troll, except the discussions I
inspire are actually help me understand. Inso much that the community
also learned, mayhaps I am an 'ethical' troll.
On 3/26/2008, "Brendan Eich" <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>This is reductionism, therefore between silly and wrong,
Can you explain the above fragment?
>* you can't make read-only properties in ES3;
I think I can! Maybe a bad developer could re-define parts of my objects,
but is the intention sugar or hacker proof?
>*you can't make don't-delete properties of plain old objects (only
>vars in closures);
Again, I can make it pretty darn hard to remove privledged fields without
killing the tree, and I ususally use plain old objects (poo) as data
>* you can't make objects that cannot be extended;
This may be true. But I think the crazy guy that invented livescript did
this to allow the power of prototype and redefine the Object/ Function
constructors actually had a good idea: JS is not a CLASSical language.
>* you can't yield from a function to its caller, saving state
>automatically in local variables, and send a value back to the
>suspended activation of that function.
I actually have a hack that used recursion, a global hash, timers, and
closures that effectively did YIELD (and it worked most of the time too!)
> It is now shrinking to meet practical
>budgets involving Ecma member consensus, prime mover commitments,
This is good news that we are coming to consensus, even if it is only for
timelines (for now).
Thank you for your considered response!
P.S. I would also love to hear from Doug on this, if you are out there!
More information about the Es4-discuss