Alex Kocharin wrote:
> 04.01.2015, 05:44, "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick at gmail.com>:
>> On Sat Jan 03 2015 at 9:41:57 PM Alex Kocharin <alex at kocharin.ru 
>> <mailto:alex at kocharin.ru>> wrote:
>>
>>     Also, if you want to prevent mistakes like `object['blah' +
>>     symbol]`, linters could be changed to forbid/warn about
>>     concatenation inside property names.
>>
>> How would a linter know that `symbol` was actually a Symbol?
> It wouldn't. But if it warns about string concatenation inside square 
> braces (means, string + variable, but not number + variable), it 
> should be good enough. This is the error the spec is trying to 
> prevent, isn't it?

No. See the JQuery examples that bz provided.

> My point is: concatenating Symbols with other strings have legitimate 
> uses.

Name one.

> And javascript shouldn't require any explicit type casting in order to 
> do this, it isn't a statically typed language.

Static types have nothing to do with getting an error on implicit 
conversion.

/be

Alex Kocharin wrote:
> 04.01.2015, 05:44, "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick at gmail.com>:
>
>> How would a linter know that `symbol` was actually a Symbol?
>
> It wouldn't. But if it warns about string concatenation inside square 
> braces (means, string + variable, but not number + variable), it 
> should be good enough. This is the error the spec is trying to 
> prevent, isn't it?

No. See the JQuery examples that bz provided.

> My point is: concatenating Symbols with other strings have legitimate 
> uses.

Name one.

> And javascript shouldn't require any explicit type casting in order to 
> do this, it isn't a statically typed language.

Static types have nothing to do with getting an error on implicit 
conversion.

Alex Kocharin wrote:
> 04.01.2015, 05:44, "Rick Waldron" <waldron.rick at gmail.com>:
>
>> How would a linter know that `symbol` was actually a Symbol?
> It wouldn't. But if it warns about string concatenation inside square 
> braces (means, string + variable, but not number + variable), it 
> should be good enough. This is the error the spec is trying to 
> prevent, isn't it?

No. See the JQuery examples that bz provided.

> My point is: concatenating Symbols with other strings have legitimate 
> uses.

Name one.

> And javascript shouldn't require any explicit type casting in order to 
> do this, it isn't a statically typed language.

Static types have nothing to do with getting an error on implicit 
conversion.