!Re: proposal: Object Members
waldemar at google.com
Fri Aug 3 23:25:39 UTC 2018
On 08/03/2018 02:37 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Yes, they were reserved because they were the Java reserved keywords,
> with the intention that we might add more Java features later in the
> langauge's evolution. That has no bearing on their use today.
That's exactly what we did. In the early days of ECMAScript we had no plans to use those but reserved them just in case. Some of the ones we reserved later accidentally became unreserved.
Introducing a new keyword-based feature when that keyword isn't reserved leads to severe complications and arbitrary [no linebreak here] rules. The nastiest cover grammars are some of the consequences of things like being able to use "async" as a function name.
More information about the es-discuss