On Sep 26, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > @ is the new dunder -- dunder at -- dat. > > Among the no-symbol proposals, I like this best. (GUIDs, shudder.) > > /be
I shudder to say this, having just finished my third complete redo of Symbols in the ES6 draft, but I also like this proposal a lot. I think I had a blind spot about string literals being accepted as methods names in object literals and classes. But this would be a significant simplifications that retains almost all the benefits of Symbols. And it's completely polyfillable. A couple more thoughts: Symbol-keyed property definitions were the primary motivator for "computed property names" in object literals and classes. They could also go away for ES6 -- another simplification. Perhaps rather than the function conventions for "@" properties , we should considerhaving them always be getter properties. But, I haven't yet sold myself on either one as being better. A negative is that it was decided that concise methods definitions create enumerable properties and I don't think we really want these showing up in for-in enumerations. Maybe we would want to revisit that decisions or at least make an exception for concise methods (or accessors) defined using explicit string literal names. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
