Re: Agreeing on user-defined unique symbols?

Irakli Gozalishivili rfobic at gmail.com
Sat Aug 10 12:40:59 PDT 2013


One think I have suggested back in a time may has an interesting property to a private symbol sharing. What if private symbols were of "function" type instead of "object", where given a symbol 'foo'

foo(object, arg1, arg2, …)

desugars to

object[foo](arg1, arg2, …)

That would make symbol sharing as legit as sharing regular functions. In addition it would allow users to define / consume them in functional or OOP style depending on their preferences.

 

Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/

On 2013-08-02 at 13:46:52 , Brendan Eich (brendan at mozilla.com) wrote:

\o/  

/be  

Brandon Benvie wrote:  
> On 8/2/2013 1:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:  
>> You can already use string literals as property names:  
>>  
>> ```js  
>> class C {  
>> "sys/iterator"() {}  
>> }  
>> ```  
>  
> Oh right, method syntax threw me off, but this is completely valid.  
> _______________________________________________  
> es-discuss mailing list  
> es-discuss at mozilla.org  
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss  
>  
_______________________________________________  
es-discuss mailing list  
es-discuss at mozilla.org  
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130810/3e293925/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list