On Mar 21, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:
> You'd still run into all of the issues caused by "private filter" behaving
> like a C++ #define. For example:
>
> var foo = {filter: 34};
> then pass foo to an outside client.
Trying to interpret your comment. Are you saying that the above appearing
within the scope of the "private filter" would unintentionally use private foo
instead of public foo?
That's true, but the whole point of the block (and the extension declaration)
was to constrain the visibility of private filter, so it could be used as an
extension property name in a limited scope. Defining a property using that
name within that scope seem like a pretty clueless error. Sure, it will
happen, but I don't see how this use of lexically scoping is any more or less
error prone an any other use.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
