obsoleting the "new" keyword
brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Jan 20 11:38:51 PST 2009
On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:06 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> I don't see any relevant arguments in followups that would
> contradict the
> position above.
You replied selectively -- not nice.
> The nearest thing to a relevant argument is:
> # The best real-world example is when implemening something in JS
> that has
> # to match an interface across a language bridge with a reasonable
> # name such as 'delete'.
Since you deleted the rest of that paragraph, here it is again:
In such a case you could certainly use an object initialiser or
assignment (doesn't matter which), but you couldn't give the function
the intrinsic name 'delete'. Named functions have their uses, not so
much for recursive calls as for better diagnostics and less
inscrutable pretty-printing results.
> but I think that is only plausible for names of methods, i.e.
> not function declarations.
This combined with deleting the relevant rest of the paragraph is a
non-sequitur. Yes, of course, property name contexts should unreserve
keywords. This is in ES3.1 already and not at issue, and rehashing it
does not address the bone of contention.
The intrinsic name of a function need not have anything to do with
property names where the property values reference the function (if
any -- the reference could be a downward funarg, obviously of a
different, non-reserved name). Diagnostics involving a call expression
should use the particular property name or other expression by which
the function was called, and do in quality implementations. But
diagnostics and debugger expressions used within the function's body
should be able to use the function's name, and if 'delete' is the best
name, it ought to be allowed.
It costs next to nothing for implementations or the spec to allow
ordinarily reserved keywords to be used after 'function', and it
benefits some users who already make use of this ability in JS1.7 and
up. The low cost and utilitarian benefit is the basis for
This is not a huge issue, but neither is it negligable -- and the
manner in which you replied makes me want to spend more time on it
anyway, for rhetorical hygiene if nothing else. In other words, I'm
prepared to lose this argument and any other worth having, but only if
you actually respond to the argument I'm making.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Es-discuss