Allowing object field name shorthand

[Sebastian Malton]

I don't see how this is like referencing the object a field is in during 
object construction. Yes field2.field4 would not be able to reference 
field2.field3 but that is not what I am proposing. I am proposing a 
syntactic sugar for nested objects


On 2017-06-22 10:05 PM, J Decker wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Sebastian Malton 
> <sebastian at malton.name <mailto:sebastian at malton.name>> wrote:
>
>     I would like to propose that the dot or '.' is allowed in object
>     field names so that the following are allowed.
>
>     var obj = {
>     field1: "val" ,
>     field2.field3: 3,
>     field2.field4: true
>     };
>
>
> This is much like
> var obj = {
>    field1: 3
>    field2 : 4
>    field3 : obj.field2+3
> }
>
> which falls apart because obj isn't technically fully defined, and 
> doesn't have a field2.  So your second field2.field4 wouldn't be able 
> to reference the previous object created for field2.field3.
>
> it would be a huge complexity for engines to create objects....
>
>
>
>     Sebastian
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     es-discuss mailing list
>     es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>     https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>     <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/20170622/65bfd9c8/attachment.html>