>
>
> Agreed -- I was mostly joking. But there's a reason the proposal called
> for a string prefix -- they will be reflected in the raw. Unlike Math.PI,
> this raw value is meaningless.
>
>
Yes - a minor issue with unique strings is that you will see distractingly
ugly property names in your debugger. More in the other thread...
> I was pointing out the very real hazard that exists in code which wouldn't
> be considered objectively bad. To be explicit, I'm claiming that for/in
> over object keys can be the Right Thing in cases where you want all
> enumerable keys up through the prototype. If unique symbols aren't
> enumerable *and* the platform demands any of them on Object.prototype
> this will introduce subtle run-time breakages at least as badly as "null"
> typeof. Even if es6 avoids them on Object.prototype who's to say they won't
> be needed in later versions? This will bite eventually.
>
Any such unique property names defined on Object.prototype in hypothetical
future ES versions would undoubtably be specified as non-enumerable, just
like the current string-named properties.
{ Kevin }
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
