Re: [JS-internals] What's in a (handle's) name?

2013-06-21 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 5:24 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > > I think readability can favor typedefs too, though, and tried to say that. > Sorry for being unclear about "consumers". Readers do not benefit > indefinitely (for every occurrence, say hundreds to thousands in a source > file) from using exc

Re: [JS-internals] What's in a (handle's) name?

2013-06-21 Thread Brendan Eich
Jim Blandy wrote: I'm surprised people are offering justifications based on how much work it is to type or add typedefs or whatever. I think readability can favor typedefs too, though, and tried to say that. Sorry for being unclear about "consumers". Readers do not benefit indefinitely (for e

Re: [JS-internals] What's in a (handle's) name?

2013-06-21 Thread Bobby Holley
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Jim Blandy wrote: > 1) All the template instantiations support the same interface. When you > see a Rooted, you know exactly what it does. Not so with typedefs. > That seems like something we can quite easily establish by convention. Are you concerned about the

Re: [JS-internals] What's in a (handle's) name?

2013-06-21 Thread Jim Blandy
I'm surprised people are offering justifications based on how much work it is to type or add typedefs or whatever. Reading is *vastly* more common than writing; that's the case to optimize for. I don't agree that the templates are an implementation detail: 1) All the template instantiations suppo