New private names proposal

Mark S. Miller erights at
Wed Dec 22 23:58:34 PST 2010

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list