This feels like convergence. I'll hook this into the RI and write it up in the next couple of days (barring further discussion, of course).
--lars > -----Original Message----- > From: Brendan Eich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13. mars 2008 15:17 > To: Lars Hansen > Cc: Neil Mix; es4-discuss@mozilla.org > Subject: Re: Controlling DontEnum (was: ES4 draft: Object) > > On Mar 13, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Lars Hansen wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Neil Mix [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> function __createProperty__(name:EnumerableId, > >> value:*, > >> enumerable:boolean=true, > >> removable:boolean=true, > >> writable:boolean=true): void > >> > >> Or some reasonable variant therein? I have no strong > opinions on the > >> form the parameters eventually take, but trying to parse what > >> dontenum=false means tends to give me headaches. ;) > > > > Well, it had to come up at some point ;) > > > > I suspect what you're proposing is the better UI. > Obviously JS1/ES3 > > shows a bias for enumerable, removable, writable properties -- the > > attribute bits flag exceptions from the general rule. The more > > general design has attribute bits that simply control those > property > > aspects, and the less biased names feel like an improvement. > > > > Brendan, opinions? > > Neil's names are much better. For the record, I didn't come > up with DontDelete and DontEnum in ES1 daze. SpiderMonkey > internally uses PERMANENT for the former and ENUMERATE for > the inverse of the latter (since the native-biased API finds > callers wanting enumerable pre- defined properties to be the > exception). > > /be > > _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
