On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > > > Brendan, I still do not understand why you think it is illegitimate to > consider private names and soft fields as alternatives. Do you really think > we should provide syntactic support for both? > > The discussion here, including Dave's point about transposed get or set for > [] being conceptually mismatched to the current [] meaning, and > David-Sarah's reply about why you can't stop a third party from using your > frozen object identity as the key in a weak map, have convinced me that even > the frozen AST example doesn't need syntax, so much as weak maps and > whatever soft fields make sense on top of them as library code. > I do not understand this reply. Could you expand? > > That leaves the private names proposal the lone bearer of new syntax. > > > > Cheers, > > --Dr. Freeze > > :-} > > /be > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss