Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com>
January 23, 2012 11:01 AM
Below...
Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock <mailto:al...@wirfs-brock.com>
> January 23, 2012 8:43 AM
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
?..
>
> const getIterator = Iterator.getIterator;
> myCoolObject.prototype.@getIterator = function() {...}
Why wouldn't myCoolObject.prototype[iterator.getIterator] work?
/be
It would, for now. But, I think you gave the reason for avoiding this
pattern in another reply. If we ever want to adopt my Reformed Object
Model proposal then we should avoid using [ ] for private name
property access. lt would actually still work fine for objects with
default [ ] behavior but not for collection objects that redefine [ ]
access.
Before encouraging a new pattern like obj[Iterator.GetIterator] we
should think about its future-proofing implicationa.
We run into this kind of trade-off all the time, but the fact is that
right now, dot and brackets are equivalent for properties named by
strings that match the IdentifierName lexical production. This isn't the
case for private names, of course -- by design: no string equivalent so
no dot.
However it does not follow that a first-class private name object value
cannot be used in square brackets to access a property it names. If we
must future-proof, then it follows that .@ and even .@() must be part of
private name objects. If everyone agrees, then we have a decision to make.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
