New private names proposal

[David-Sarah Hopwood]

On 2010-12-23 23:55, David Herman wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2010, at 4:27 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> 
>> We don't know whether [] will be changed
>> at all. (In the proposal to add a @ or .# operator, it isn't.)
> 
> Hm, this looks like a pretty serious misunderstanding of the private names proposal.

I was not referring to the private names proposal, but to the more recent
suggestions from various people to add a @ or .# operator instead of
changing []. (I should not have referred to those suggestions as a proposal.
Careless editing, sorry.)

> In every variant of the proposal, the object model is changed so that private name
> values are allowable property keys. This means that in every variant of the
> private names proposal, [] can't be defined via a local transformation. This
> has *nothing* to do with the @ or .# operators.

Changes to [] are not needed if @ or .# is added (or if [# ] is added).

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 292 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101224/4750a1b7/attachment.bin>