On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Rick Waldron wrote:
> Dave, if nesting were out of the question and monocle-mustache operator
> always looked like an object literal as they currently exist, would it still
> be as vile? With that form, I'm a big fan.
I'm of multiple minds (a condition I'm gradually getting accustomed to).
1) I'm really against the current syntax, because it hides the fact that it's a
mutation. Assignments masquerading as declarative forms bring out Angry Dave
(you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...)
2) I like it better if it includes "=" in it, e.g.:
obj .= { foo: 1, bar: 2 };
3) But that makes me really wish for a more general expression form, so I could
also do e.g.:
obj1 .= obj2;
I've even written up a strawman for it:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:batch_assignment_operator
4) Allen has pointed out that this is problematic for private names. For many
use cases, it'd be fine if .= just didn't copy any private names -- done. But
Allen's class pattern wanted to be able to specify private names. So he
restricted the RHS to look like a literal.
5) Still, I have to say, the restricted RHS just seems ad hoc and unsatisfying.
Anyway, I'm still mulling.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
