On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:09 , Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> How would object value types such as int64 work? Should symbols be similar?
> 
> That came up and was an argument for making typeof sym == "symbol", given sym = Symbol(). Same for int64 and uint64 in my patch at
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749786

Can’t wait for those. They might even warrant an update to JSON.

> (Note on that bug's patch: it still allows i = new int64(0) but I will change new to throw, per agreement at last TC39 meeting to make new create a reference type instead of a value type for aggregates from binary data, i.e. structs and typed arrays.)


Nice. If symbols mimic this behavior then it probably should be symbol() instead of Symbol().

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130413/49485ac9/attachment-0001.html>

On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:09 , Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
>> How would object value types such as `int64` work? Should symbols be similar?
> 
> That came up and was an argument for making `typeof sym == "symbol"`, given `sym = Symbol()`. Same for `int64` and `uint64` in my patch at
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749786

Can't wait for those. They might even warrant an update to JSON.

> (Note on that bug's patch: it still allows `i = new int64(0)` but I will change new to throw, per agreement at last TC39 meeting to make new create a reference type instead of a value type for aggregates from binary data, i.e. structs and typed arrays.)


Nice. If symbols mimic this behavior then it probably should be symbol() instead of Symbol().