kris at sitepen.com
Wed Nov 19 11:46:08 PST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
+1, I think this was one of the most valuable features from ES4.
Peter Michaux wrote:
> The strawman:names wiki page
> starts with
> "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
> property private?
> 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".
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at mozilla.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Es-discuss