On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:

>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:50 PM, David Herman wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:48 PM, Domenic Denicola <
> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't understand why this is happening. There was fairly strong
> consensus on symbols at the last meeting, and nothing new has been brought
> to the table. Why are people's opinions suddenly changing? Vague
> fearmongering about "complexity"? Symbols are a good solution to a real
> problem, much better than strings.
> >
> > +so much
> >
> > I am very disappointed by this thread.
>
> Actually, something new was brought to the table.  The convention of using
> string literal specified, non-identifier property names for stratified meta
> operations.
>

This will effectively "version" plain objects: one version that all code in
existence was written to work with and the other that will become something
developers regard as a "bad part" due to strange special behaviour that
doesn't match expectations.


Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130926/5bc45a66/attachment.html>

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:

> Actually, something new was brought to the table.  The convention of using
> string literal specified, non-identifier property names for stratified meta
> operations.

This will effectively "version" plain objects: one version that all code in
existence was written to work with and the other that will become something
developers regard as a "bad part" due to strange special behaviour that
doesn't match expectations.