Lexically Scoped Object Extensions (was About private names)
erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
Tue Mar 22 10:23:32 PDT 2011
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 00:21, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
> I wish you would make your proposal more precise; right now we have to infer it from your single example. In my conversations with several others on the committee, I'm already seeing lots of confusion about the semantics of what you are describing here. Can you write this up as a strawman in more detail?
I will write up a strawman with more details eventually. I just wanted
to approach the problem from the use case angle instead of from the
primitive building blocks.
> - you haven't made clear whether the semantics does a dynamic property add and property delete at the beginning and end of the scope;
> - you haven't made clear what the property key that 'filter' refers to in the example actually is; and
> - you haven't made clear whether there's any way that external code transitively called during the lifetime of the block could access the 'filter' property.
> I also have to call a foul when you claim that this can do something that private names can't but then declare it out of bounds for anyone else to discuss the validity of that claim.
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. If private names can do this. Great.
My issue with the private names discussion was that it was trying to
fit a very powerful primitive to a very specific use case and we had a
hard time seeing a good fit. Instead I wanted to approach this from
the other direction.
More information about the es-discuss