New private names proposal

[Brendan Eich]

On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> Brendan, I still do not understand why you think it is illegitimate to consider private names and soft fields as alternatives. Do you really think we should provide syntactic support for both? 

The discussion here, including Dave's point about transposed get or set for [] being conceptually mismatched to the current [] meaning, and David-Sarah's reply about why you can't stop a third party from using your frozen object identity as the key in a weak map, have convinced me that even the frozen AST example doesn't need syntax, so much as weak maps and whatever soft fields make sense on top of them as library code.

That leaves the private names proposal the lone bearer of new syntax.


>     Cheers,
>     --Dr. Freeze

:-}

/be