New private names proposal

[Mark S. Miller]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I do not understand this reply. Could you expand?



>
> That leaves the private names proposal the lone bearer of new syntax.
>
>
> >     Cheers,
> >     --Dr. Freeze
>
> :-}
>
> /be
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101222/f1cbef93/attachment-0001.html>