I already have the specification semantics setup to work that way. It is really only the syntax rules that distinguishes the two forms.
On May 29, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Herby Vojčík wrote: > Hi, > > I sent the mail in attachment to the list, but it did not arrive yet, so I > send it this way. It is exactly about making those two spec-wise the same > thing. What do you think of it (since it DRYes it, it would not complicate > the proposal and the resulting spec and language could have the consistency > for this "hard-wired")? > > Herby > > Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: >> On May 29, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Herby Vojčík wrote: >> >>> Couldn't all this be solved by allowing = also for object literals >>> and promoting its use? People get used to the fact that = is the >>> "normal" way and : is the "special" way plus they are told JSON >>> only has : for both historical and security reasons. >>> >>> Because I feel the main problem felt here is "don't help developers >>> do [[DefineProperty]] all over". I say : should definitelybe there >>> (consistency, I value it very highly, so no = only), but by saying >>> "using = is the right style" people can move away from using : in >>> literal, so they will also not use it in mustache. >> >> I actually considered including the above in my proposal precisely >> for consistency and the reasons that have been discussed on this >> thread. However, I ultimately decided against including it. >> Primarily because it further complicate the proposal and yet didn't >> seem to have compelling use cause = semantics in the new object >> (object lit) case. >> >> I'm not necessarily opposed to it, if it would address these >> concerns. >> >> Allen > <Attached Message.eml> _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
