New private names proposal
Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Thu Dec 16 17:12:44 PST 2010
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:03 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
> > I'll address this last point first, since this seems to be the core
> issue. The question I am raising is: given soft fields, why do we need
> private names?
> I didn't see that asked as a question; I saw it asserted, but not opened
> for discussion.
Ok, I open it for discussion. Given soft fields, why do we need private
> And I disagree.
I'm sorry, but what do you disagree with? That I am raising the question?
Below, you seem to be saying that given names, why do we need soft fields?
How is that not a "there can be only one!" Highlander contest? If that's
not what you're saying, then what?
> Now, I happen to think it's not worth blessing libraries simply because
> they could be optimized, but I do not see soft fields as supplanting private
> names -- especially because of usability -- but especially because I happen
> to like weak maps very much, and very much hope for a world where ES a)
> makes it easy to write (any number of) soft field libraries and b) makes it
> *easy* to store encapsulated data in objects.
How do names make this easier than soft fields?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss