Oliver Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com 
> <mailto:erights at google.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     No wrapping object type -- those are legacy, to be avoided. See
>>     http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:value_objects.
>>     The main thing is value not reference semantics.
>>
>>
>> On that page: "It’s forwards-compatible with future mechanisms for 
>> user-defined value objects." How can we be confident of this? I would 
>> like to be.
>
> That's a concern I have as well -- i'm not 100% sold on user-defined 
> value objects, but i think i'd prefer that we get those done before 
> bolting on [u]int64 and hoping that they're forwards compatible.  I 
> don't want to deal with any "we can't do x due to uint64" style problems.

Totally -- that's why all of this is on the ES7 agenda. I'll write a 
strawman on user-defined value objects.

/be

Oliver Hunt wrote:
> That's a concern I have as well -- i'm not 100% sold on user-defined 
> value objects, but i think i'd prefer that we get those done before 
> bolting on [u]int64 and hoping that they're forwards compatible.  I 
> don't want to deal with any "we can't do x due to uint64" style problems.

Totally -- that's why all of this is on the ES7 agenda. I'll write a 
strawman on user-defined value objects.