On 2010-12-21 18:20, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> Even if this style did become the norm, I don't see why you would argue in
> support of mechanisms that allow extension of frozen objects. Isn't the
> whole point of freezing to prevent any extensions. why is the fact that
> the extension is accompl
> I never said I don't want syntactic support. I said I don't like the syntax
> you proposed. You and Dave have now both said that you consider this to be
> the main issue.
Hm, I certainly didn't intend to say that. I'm not quite sure what you're
referring to that I said. I don't necessarily ha
On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> The promised separate email:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>
> It seems to me, the real point of difference here is whether or not we should
> add a syntactic mechanism that supports information hiding i
The promised separate email:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
>
> It seems to me, the real point of difference here is whether or not we
> should add a syntactic mechanism that supports information hiding in the
> context of JavaScript objects. Some constituents want th
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
wrote:
> See below:
>
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
>
>> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private
>> Names" proposal was to suppo
See below:
On Dec 21, 2010, at 9:03 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock
> wrote:
> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private Names"
> proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may be a
> goal of som
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private
> Names" proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may
> be a goal of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would
> state as the
();
________________
From: Garrett Smith
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock
Cc: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 11:28:15 PM
Subject: Re: Private names use cases
On 12/20/10, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal
On 12/20/10, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private Names"
> proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may be a
> goal of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would state as
> the goal.
>
> I have tw
On 2010-12-20 17:21, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private Names"
> proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may be a
> goal of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would state as
> the goal.
>
>
I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private Names"
proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may be a goal
of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would state as the
goal.
I have two specific use cases in mind for "private names
11 matches
Mail list logo
