On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Another Harmony idea:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:names for unforgeable
property names not equated to any string. These cannot collide, and with
sugar to let them be used with . (not only in computed
Hello David,
Saturday, April 17, 2010, 2:01:09 AM, you wrote:
var foo = {x: 10, :y: 20} // although...
where :y - is your private Name symbol.
Choose any:
...
and so on, there are many interesting naming conventions (which are
not yet borrowed by backward compatibility).
Any of
On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Excuse me, seems I missed something. I thought first that you
mentioned them in private viewpoint, but in this sentence you say
that names will help to place standard methods/properties in built-
ins prototypes avoiding naming collisions.
On Apr 17, 2010, at 12:06 AM, David Herman wrote:
A Name object that is required to be a leaf in the live object
graph has the advantage that it can be strongly referenced by the
implementation when used as a property name (key), without
reference cycles being possible. Implementations
But I meant not only naming convention, but that by this naming
convention this properties (symbols) will be hidden -- just like in
Python, when _ and __ properties become unavailable outside...
You still haven't specified what outside means. What does get to see a hidden
name and what
On Apr 17, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
Excuse me, seems I missed something. I thought first that you
mentioned them in private viewpoint, but in this sentence you say
that names will help to place standard methods/properties
On 2010-04-17, at 00:06, David Herman wrote:
PS Still, I have my doubts about using any such mechanisms for versioning.
The topic is not versioning in full, rather hiding properties added to
built-in prototypes.
I had the impression Tucker was thinking about versioning, but I may have
There are multiple levels of opt-in versioning:
(1) versioning of the language itself
(2) language support for versioning of libraries
I agree with what you're saying wrt (1), but wrt (2), feature detection is
feasible, and I'd think more tractable than version detection.
Dave
On Apr 17,
Erik Arvidsson wrote:
Unfortunately there are use case (although limited) that cannot be
solved without a mutable __proto__. Extending built *classes* is one
such use case.
function HelloElement() {
var el = document.createElement('div');
el.__proto__ = HelloElement.prototype;
el.text =
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 3:03 PM, David Herman wrote:
There are multiple levels of opt-in versioning:
(1) versioning of the language itself
(2) language support for versioning of libraries
I agree with what you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/14/2010 11:30 AM, David Herman wrote:
function foo(...) { f-(...); g-(...); }
[snip]
Of course, and I certainly understand how continuations reify the
frame(s), and how traditional continuations preserve the stack, but I
don't follow how
On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Peter van der Zee wrote:
To be solved:
- Allow non-string-property keys
- Allow hidden properties, non-enumerable, not generically
accessible (like stringed keys are now). To be honest, I'm still not
100% clear on this one.
I don't see how these two differ.
12 matches
Mail list logo
