New private names proposal

[Mark S. Miller]

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
>
> Btw, near the end of <
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:inherited_explicit_soft_fields>,
I also say:

"I (MarkM) do not like the sugar proposed for Names, as I think it
encourages confusion between literal text and lexical lookup. However, this
issue seems to be orthogonal to the soft fields vs. Names debate."






> /be
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101216/7a5cd489/attachment.html>