Alternative proposal to privateName.public

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Thu Dec 22 17:15:00 PST 2011


Le 22/12/2011 17:15, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
> 2011/12/22 David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com <mailto:bruant.d at gmail.com>>
>
>     Le 22/12/2011 13:20, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
>     > Having also just read about the different use cases of "private"
>     names
>     > versus just "unique" names,
>     Can you give a link to or describe these uses cases? It will make
>     easier
>     (at least to me) understanding your proposal and compare it with other
>     proposals.
>
>
> I was just referring to the text on the private names proposal page,
> in particular the section "Possible visibility flag" mentioning
> modular monkey-patching.
>
> The use case of modular monkey-patching is driven by the need for a
> unique property name, not necessarily a private property name. The
> goal here is to avoid name clashes.
That was the part I was failing to understand, thanks for the explanation.

I don't find anything to say to your proposal. I understand the
differences with what I proposed, but can't find argument to choose one
or the other.
I think the part I was finding the most annoying in the current proposal
was the forced conversion in the trap (and being forced to convert back
while in the handler) and you proposal gets rid of it too.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111223/ef481a8a/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list