domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2013-08-12T05:32:28.845Z)
One think I have suggested back in a time may has an interesting property to a private symbol sharing. What if private symbols were of "function" type instead of "object", where given a symbol 'foo' ```js foo(object, arg1, arg2, …) ``` desugars to ```js object[foo](arg1, arg2, …) ``` That would make symbol sharing as legit as sharing regular functions. In addition it would allow users to define / consume them in functional or OOP style depending on their preferences.
One think I have suggested back in a time may has an interesting property to a private symbol sharing. What if private symbols were of "function" type instead of "object", where given a symbol 'foo' foo(object, arg1, arg2, …) desugars to object[foo](arg1, arg2, …) That would make symbol sharing as legit as sharing regular functions. In addition it would allow users to define / consume them in functional or OOP style depending on their preferences. Regards -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ On 2013-08-02 at 13:46:52 , Brendan Eich (brendan at mozilla.com) wrote: \o/ /be Brandon Benvie wrote: > On 8/2/2013 1:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: >> You can already use string literals as property names: >> >> ```js >> class C { >> "sys/iterator"() {} >> } >> ``` > > Oh right, method syntax threw me off, but this is completely valid. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss at mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130810/3e293925/attachment.html>