- From: Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:18:49 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Divya Manian <manian@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANyEp6Wqi3g=tURHTm9=YNCGAaSERa4Qv-mDHf4Xj9rJQqU0AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Bah. please disregard the first paragraph, I meant to delete it after reformatting my reply. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net> wrote: > > I've heard your reasoning and it doesn't satisfy me nor many people whom I > have discussions with outside of this list. Say it as much as you want, but > these are not variables. They are different -- they are a new class of > things. > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> I've given my reasoning for both the similarity and distinction. >> > > And I'm not satisfied with this reasoning. Lots of people are not. Just > because variables cascade doesn't make them properties. If they were > properties, then properties could be read like variables without any issue. > > >> Consistency is an excellent and important quality, but we shouldn't >> fetishize it. > > > "Fetishize"? Come on, Let's avoid the loaded language. > > >> It's okay for a new class of things to be different in >> some ways if the difference has a good reason to exist. That doesn't >> automatically imply that the small difference makes them a completely >> new and different thing, and it definitely doesn't automatically imply >> that the new class should *look* different, syntax-wise, from the >> older things. > > > I read a lot of words, but I'm not sure you said anything in this > paragraph. So I don't know how to respond. I don't see any point in arguing > about language design philosophy in this thread. > > Here's why I don't like the property syntax: It gives fine structure to an > identifier where there needn't be any. the delineation between declaring > something is a variable and the name of that variable should be syntax, not > a naming convention. > > If it really is a property then make it a property with a -user- prefix > and then make all properties accessible for read. This is a lovely system. > it's not variables really. but it is completely consistent. If your going > to draw a line about what properties can be read as a value, then make this > delineation formal. > > chris >
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 23:19:18 UTC