StopIteration, ForwardToTarget, ... & symbols

Herby Vojčík herby at mailbox.sk
Tue Nov 27 04:15:51 PST 2012


Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> Herby Vojčík wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> shouldn't StopIteration, ForwardToTarget from "Notification proxies"
>>>> thread and similar ones be rather well-known unique symbols (like
>>>> @iterator), now that we have them, instead of well-known globals? \
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Let's separate the naming and unique identity concerns. Objects have
>>> unique identity, so do symbols. But if a unique identity is required
>>> without being a property key, then an object is the right answer, not
>>> a symbol. I think this applies to StopIteration.
>>>
>>> Then there's the naming question. Should one have to use an @-name to
>>> reference a singleton object? Again I say no. APIs have public names,
>>> mostly or always. An identifier is a fine public name, better than a
>>> non-private symbol if bound in a namespace object or module -- or
>>> even if a global like JSON.
>>
>> Orthogonal issues. A symbol object object can be the value bound to a
>> regular identifier. The @ is primarily for literal property naming
>> syntactic contexts. EG, after a dot.
>
> I know it's orthogonal -- please!
>
> It was not clear which of the two (or both) Herby was raising.

Both, and in fact all the three (including, but not mentioning realm 
indepndence, which is a plus for such cases).

I felt as a good thing having specific naming, realm independence and 
unique identity in one language construct. That's why I naturally think 
of symbols as usable in such situations.

Allen wrote: "The @ is primarily for literal property naming
 >> syntactic contexts. EG, after a dot." Primarily means, I can use it 
also out of the "after the dot (including concise method names / 
extended literal property names)" context. Is it encouraged to use them 
in such a way? As a "unique, realm-independent object with @name"? Or 
this use case is discouraged? Or no opinion given in spec leaving the 
wild to find its use?

>>>> On the more general line, I got pretty fond of (unique) symbols,
>>>> they seem like very good things for these sentinel-like objects. Is
>>>> it ok / preferable to use them for that? No need to use empty
>>>> objects bearing only their identity any more, imo.
>>> For unique identity, why do you care between symbol and object?
>>
>> A nice thing about Symbols as I've now spec'ed them in the latest
>> draft. It that they are truly immutable, stateless, and Realm
>> independent. They don't carry any other object references at all. Not
>> even to their toString method. (fun things that can be done via the
>> MOP...)
>
> The realm independence is interesting. That could be compelling indeed
> for StopIteration, except we already proposed isStopIteration.
>
> /be

Herby


More information about the es-discuss mailing list