petermichaux at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 21:41:35 PST 2008
The strawman:names wiki page
"It is not possible to create hidden properties in an object when
property names can only be strings."
Why can't a string-named property be private? I understand they aren't
now but why couldn't the "private" keyword make a string-named
At the bottom of the same page
"Should we allow new Name('blah') for better printed representation?
(Similar to (gensym 'blah) in Scheme)"
If there is "a new Name constructor" as mentioned higher in the wiki
page, then why wouldn't "new Name('blah')" be allowed?
Since (gensym) returns a symbol, the above quotation makes it seem
that the proposed Name objects are like Scheme symbols, correct? If
this is the case, why not just call them Symbol objects? There is
precedence for "symbol" in many languages and "symbol" is far less
overloaded in the programming world than "name".
More information about the Es-discuss