On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Sebastian Zartner < sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> > On 9/19/12 9:16 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >> sorry, i meant to remove item(index); but this brings up the question >> of >> >> whether enumeration of properties, e.g., via "for (propertyName in >> >> rule.descriptors)" is sufficient or not >> > >> > What use cases are we trying to support? >> > >> > "for .. in" enumeration will enumerate all sorts of stuff in addition >> to the >> > descriptor names... >> >> You can use hasOwnProperty to fix that. for-of loops fix it for you >> automatically, and they've been approved for Harmony for some time. >> >> So, yes, I think enumeration of properties is sufficient, unless we >> can establish any good use-cases for something more complicated. >> > > Yes, enumeration is the use-case. And of course enumerating the > descriptors you should be able to just get either their camelCased names or > their property name representation. Though the descriptors should be > accessible through both notations. Or there should be a mapping between > both notations. The current thinking is to do the latter only (define mapping between notations in spec prose), and *not* provide enumeration or access via the non-mapped (hyphenated) notation, but only via the mapped, camel-case notation.
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 07:40:01 UTC