strawman for the := operator

Brendan Eich brendan at
Thu Aug 9 09:32:18 PDT 2012

David Herman wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> The problem is that neither = nor Object.defineProperty can be used succinctly and reliably to shadow or override.
> OK, that's the real problem, thanks for making it clear -- sorry if I missed it before.

No problem. The "succinctly and reliably" conjunction is important, but 
it's not an argument for new syntax, by itself. I think we agree that an 
API such as Object.update would solve most of the problem, if not all 
("succinctly"). Object.update could be polyfilled, to boot.

> So then the question becomes: how common should it be, then? Are the use cases it addresses common enough to warrant new syntax?

It's hard to say for sure, but I find the class "statics" use-case 
compelling, since maximin classes don't have any declarative support for 
class-side properties.

> Especially syntax that looks like a new variation on an existing thing. ("Wait, which kind of assignment do I need to use here?")

That does look like trouble, now that you and Doug point it out. We have 
spiraled around .{ and := but not .= -- would .= be better?


More information about the es-discuss mailing list