New private names proposal

[Brendan Eich]

On Dec 22, 2010, at 7:34 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

> As far as I can see, MarkM has not (at least, not on the wiki) proposed
> any new syntax in this discussion that had not already been proposed in
> one of Allen's proposals.

Wrong again. Allen did not write the original strawman:names proposal.-- from the top of private_names:

"Original proposal by Dave Herman and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt is here."

Follow that link and read http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names#binding_private_names to see only examples using x.key, etc. -- no square brackets.

Mark's example predates private_names and so may have worked in the old names proposal, but only via square brackets. Not via dot -- so again *not* "the same syntax" as what even strawman:names proposed.

Never mind the private names proposal that supersedes names -- not faulting Mark for lacking clairvoyance here -- I'm faulting you for twisting "the same syntax" from its obvious meaning of "all the same syntax" to "the subset that uses square brackets".

You seem to have problem owning up to mistakes. I've counted four so far and each time I point them out you either deny with lots of words, or ignore. This makes it hard to justify continuing our little exchange.

/be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101222/5a42fa4b/attachment.html>