I don't see how this is like referencing the object a field is in during
object construction. Yes field2.field4 would not be able to reference
field2.field3 but that is not what I am proposing. I am proposing a
syntactic sugar for nested objects
On 2017-06-22 10:05 PM, J Decker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Sebastian Malton
<sebast...@malton.name <mailto:sebast...@malton.name>> wrote:
I would like to propose that the dot or '.' is allowed in object
field names so that the following are allowed.
var obj = {
field1: "val" ,
field2.field3: 3,
field2.field4: true
};
This is much like
var obj = {
field1: 3
field2 : 4
field3 : obj.field2+3
}
which falls apart because obj isn't technically fully defined, and
doesn't have a field2. So your second field2.field4 wouldn't be able
to reference the previous object created for field2.field3.
it would be a huge complexity for engines to create objects....
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
