Re: Namespaces on definitions
I agree. I don't see why there should be multiple syntaxes that are as concise as each other and both have about equal precedent (AS3 vs. E4X). If in some futuer spec, properties can inhabit multiple namespaces, then we can consider the |ns1 ns2 ... var foo| syntax again. -Yuh-Ruey Waldemar Horwat wrote: My views on this are: - There should be only *one* syntax for specifying namespaces in definitions. It shouldn't be ns::foo = xyz in one place (object initializers) and ns var foo = xyz someplace else (variable definitions). - The historical reason I chose the syntax ns var foo = xyz for ES4 was that I allowed the same definition to simultaneously go into several namespaces: ns1 ns2 ns3 var foo = xyz would create ns1::foo, ns2::foo, and ns3::foo, which would be aliases of the same variable (not three different variables). ES4 doesn't support that any more, so this reason goes away and the issue can be reconsidered. Now that the issue has been brought up, I'm warming up to the syntax var ns::foo = xyz everywhere. It's simpler to remember. It doesn't match Java, but if that were a goal then we should first change our type annotation syntax to that of C++ and Java. Waldemar ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Re: Namespaces on definitions
On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote: I agree. I don't see why there should be multiple syntaxes that are as concise as each other and both have about equal precedent (AS3 vs. E4X). If in some futuer spec, properties can inhabit multiple namespaces, then we can consider the |ns1 ns2 ... var foo| syntax again. The syntaxes are not equally concise, not only because :: is heavier visually and in terms of keyboard input (two shifted chars) than spaces. Consider ns var foo, bar; vs. var ns::foo, ns::bar; It's true you can't distribute one type across several variables: var foo:T, bar:T; but that's not a reason to restrict namespace syntax per se. Cases of ns including public, protected, private, and internal may be the most useful ones for this distributive syntax, but are those namespaces? Either way, the ns var foo syntax is more concise. /be___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Re: Namespaces on definitions
Here are some other interesting cases involving destructuring patterns.
Qualified syntax:
var {x = ns::x, y = ns::y, z = ns::z}: {x:A, y:B, z:C } = ...
var [ns::x, ns::y, ns::z}: [A, B, C ] = ...
Attribute syntax:
ns var {x, y, z}: {x:A, y:B, z:C} = ...
ns var [x, y, z]: [A, B, C] = ...
To my eye the latter are cleaner and clearer. There is another sense in
which I think the attribute syntax is better. The identifier is the short
name of the binding and having it cleanly delineated from the namespace part
of the name makes the meaning of the binding clearer.
I agree that having two ways of naming properties is unfortunate, but it¹s
probably unavoidable. I tried the opposite approach of using var¹ and
const¹ forms in object initializers to get rid of some uses of qualified
names there. But in the end, that is just noisier. I¹ve resigned myself to
the view that ³N::X² is the way to name dynamic properties, and ³N var X²
(and the like) is the way to name fixed properties.
Jd
On 4/16/08 6:38 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
I agree. I don't see why there should be multiple syntaxes that are as
concise as each other and both have about equal precedent (AS3 vs. E4X).
If in some futuer spec, properties can inhabit multiple namespaces, then
we can consider the |ns1 ns2 ... var foo| syntax again.
The syntaxes are not equally concise, not only because :: is heavier visually
and in terms of keyboard input (two shifted chars) than spaces. Consider
ns var foo, bar;
vs.
var ns::foo, ns::bar;
It's true you can't distribute one type across several variables:
var foo:T, bar:T;
but that's not a reason to restrict namespace syntax per se.
Cases of ns including public, protected, private, and internal may be the most
useful ones for this distributive syntax, but are those namespaces? Either
way, the ns var foo syntax is more concise.
/be
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Re: Namespaces on definitions
There is an old downside to the attribute syntax: You can't put line breaks
between the attributes and the definition, even though it's tempting to do so
on long lines. Otherwise you silently change the meaning of existing ES3 code
like:
foo
var bar = 3
Waldemar
Jeff Dyer wrote:
Here are some other interesting cases involving destructuring patterns.
Qualified syntax:
var {x = ns::x, y = ns::y, z = ns::z}: {x:A, y:B, z:C } = ...
var [ns::x, ns::y, ns::z}: [A, B, C ] = ...
Attribute syntax:
ns var {x, y, z}: {x:A, y:B, z:C} = ...
ns var [x, y, z]: [A, B, C] = ...
To my eye the latter are cleaner and clearer. There is another sense in
which I think the attribute syntax is better. The identifier is the
short name of the binding and having it cleanly delineated from the
namespace part of the name makes the meaning of the binding clearer.
I agree that having two ways of naming properties is unfortunate, but
it’s probably unavoidable. I tried the opposite approach of using ‘var’
and ‘const’ forms in object initializers to get rid of some uses of
qualified names there. But in the end, that is just noisier. I’ve
resigned myself to the view that “N::X” is the way to name dynamic
properties, and “N var X” (and the like) is the way to name fixed
properties.
Jd
On 4/16/08 6:38 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:50 AM, Yuh-Ruey Chen wrote:
I agree. I don't see why there should be multiple syntaxes that
are as
concise as each other and both have about equal precedent (AS3
vs. E4X).
If in some futuer spec, properties can inhabit multiple
namespaces, then
we can consider the |ns1 ns2 ... var foo| syntax again.
The syntaxes are not equally concise, not only because :: is heavier
visually and in terms of keyboard input (two shifted chars) than
spaces. Consider
ns var foo, bar;
vs.
var ns::foo, ns::bar;
It's true you can't distribute one type across several variables:
var foo:T, bar:T;
but that's not a reason to restrict namespace syntax /per se/.
Cases of ns including public, protected, private, and internal may
be the most useful ones for this distributive syntax, but are those
namespaces? Either way, the ns var foo syntax is more concise.
/be
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
___
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
Namespaces on definitions
My views on this are: - There should be only *one* syntax for specifying namespaces in definitions. It shouldn't be ns::foo = xyz in one place (object initializers) and ns var foo = xyz someplace else (variable definitions). - The historical reason I chose the syntax ns var foo = xyz for ES4 was that I allowed the same definition to simultaneously go into several namespaces: ns1 ns2 ns3 var foo = xyz would create ns1::foo, ns2::foo, and ns3::foo, which would be aliases of the same variable (not three different variables). ES4 doesn't support that any more, so this reason goes away and the issue can be reconsidered. Now that the issue has been brought up, I'm warming up to the syntax var ns::foo = xyz everywhere. It's simpler to remember. It doesn't match Java, but if that were a goal then we should first change our type annotation syntax to that of C++ and Java. Waldemar Lars Hansen wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Zeppieri Sent: 11. april 2008 09:50 ... The question is: why not apply it to classes, too? By the way, I was wrong about the grammar allowing var public::count = ... in classes. It doesn't. But why not allow it there and consider it canonical? (Doesn't 'var' also indicate that the property is a fixture in a class definition, too? It's not part of the name, anyway.) One motivation is that programmers are likely to prefer the Java-like syntax where the namespace (in its role as access control) shows up early: public var count = private var key = I really think this is the right syntax for variables. The syntax var private::key, private::foo, public::x, private::bar; is certainly workable and unambiguous but public var x; private var key, foo, bar; works better for me, because the access control is visible and separated from the names, because each phrase is shorter, and because I'm guaranteed to separate my privates from my publics. Classes are sort of funny since you can consider a property name in a class both as a property on the instance (o.id) but also just as a scoped variable, inside all the methods of the class. If you're *really* into Java the former case disappears completely because there will be getter/setter pairs for everything ;) so the scoped variable case is completely dominant. I'm not sure that's wrong, and I think a variable declaration syntax is more natural than an object property syntax. (The syntax of field names in object initializers, on the other hand, is a consequence of how that syntax has evolved.) Matters of taste? To an extent. But preserving brain print from other languages (Java, Python) is not unimportant, it's one of the principles that have been used in designing the language. --lars ___ Es4-discuss mailing list Es4-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
