-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 101
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Find a replacement for indirect field reference #865
Comments
@gibson042 the idea of introducing dictionaries to avoid using records like this makes a lot of sense to me. If it's acceptable to the 262 editors and can be added to ecmarkup, let's do it. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
ECMA-262 editors are opposed to accepting Record [[<fieldName>]] syntax, and for good reason. We should strive to minimize its use in ECMA-402, and ideally eliminate it altogether. One possibility that comes to mind is introduction of a Dictionary specification type, such that record.[[<fieldName>]] could be replaced with e.g. dict[fieldName] or DictionaryGet(dict, fieldName). This would also improve our ability to address #81, in particular by separating spec values that have static keys (which would mostly remain Records) from those with dynamic keys such as the values of constructor [[LocaleData]] slots (which would become Dictionaries).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: