On Aug 21, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> David Herman wrote: >> Any, String and Object should still be uppercase. The naming convention is: >> value types lowercase, reference types uppercase. > > Is String really a reference type? Currently you can't tell, and JS docs and > books don't (AFAIK) say "reference type" apart from object (not null; > including function). String also happens to spell the constructor/converter > function, which sadly both returns a primitive and creates a String object > depending on how it is called. You can tell, in that a type that includes String must be opaque. The might-be-a-pointer property of a type is observable in the typed objects API in that it cannot expose its backing storage as an ArrayBuffer. Strings necessarily might-be-a-pointer. I take your point that it's confusing on the primitive/object axis, though. So... all right, let's break out those paintbrushes. Let's say we use the lowercase naming convention for purely immutable types, independent of whether they might-be-a-pointer. This still leaves Dmitry's question about the unfortunate name collision -- even though modules make this "okay," it's still a PITA in practice not to be able to import Object without shadowing the built-in Object. Personally I'd be fine with just lowercasing all the things. Brendan, you cared about using capitalization for object types, though. What color is your bikeshed? Dave _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
