New private names proposal

Mark S. Miller erights at
Thu Dec 16 15:47:48 PST 2010

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> > Currently is JS, x['foo'] and are precisely identical in all
> contexts. This regularity helps understandability. The terseness difference
> above is not an adequate reason to sacrifice it.
> Aren't you proposing the same syntax x[i] where i is a soft field map, to
> make exactly the same sacrifice?

I am **not** proposing these syntactic extensions. Neither am I avoiding
them on that page, since the point of that page is to compare semantics, not
syntax. The first paragraph (!) of that page clearly states:

"This translation does not imply endorsement of all elements of the names
proposal as translated to soft fields, such as the proposed syntactic

The two issues are orthogonal. Whichever of Names or Soft Fields wins, we
can have an orthogonal argument about whether the winner should use this
syntactic shorthand. Conversely, whatever the outcome of the syntax argument
in this thread, they would apply equally well to either semantics.

> /be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list