New private names proposal

[David Herman]

Without new syntax, isn't soft fields just a library on top of weak maps?

Dave

On Dec 16, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> 
> > Currently is JS, x['foo'] and x.foo 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?
> 
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names_vs_soft_fields
> 
> 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 extensions."
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101216/283b7c4d/attachment.html>