? operatorGilad: Can we get rid of it?Lars: Yes.Gilad: OK, done.
map literalsLars asks if everyone likes the new proposal [that Gilad sent to the language team]. Everyone does.[This is now in the latest published spec. Basically, you can have non-string keys in map literals. Woo!]
library namesGilad says Kasper's proposal looks fine. Given other decisions we've made, it makes things more consistent.Lars is reluctantly accepting it.
This means it will be a static warning to import multiple libraries with the same name. This is a breaking change so we should let people know it's coming.
--
For other discussions, see https://groups.google.com/a/dartlang.org/
For HOWTO questions, visit http://stackoverflow.com/tags/dart
To file a bug report or feature request, go to http://www.dartbug.com/new
>map literals>Lars asks if everyone likes the new proposal [that Gilad sent to the language team]. Everyone does.>[This is now in the latest published spec. Basically, you can have non-string keys in map literals. Woo!]Woo! +++ (I don't know why this restriction was in place, but always sounded silly to me; well, to be honest, it more sounded like: "I'm a lazy guy and don't want to support this in the compiler" >:-P ).
>map literals>Lars asks if everyone likes the new proposal [that Gilad sent to the language team]. Everyone does.>[This is now in the latest published spec. Basically, you can have non-string keys in map literals. Woo!]Woo! +++ (I don't know why this restriction was in place, but always sounded silly to me; well, to be honest, it more sounded like: "I'm a lazy guy and don't want to support this in the compiler" >:-P ).The main reason was, that `{ foo: 42 }` looks like a map from "foo" to 42 for JavaScript programmers. In Dart you need to find the variable "foo".
So will the elimination of the ? operator mean that ternary if statements are no longer supported?
I suppose they are talking about the elvis operator, not the ternary operator...
--
It makes sense to me, but I still wonder about the purpose of library names. They are not very important, as they can be duplicate, but they are so important that duplicitate imports are becoming a warning.
I think I'd just tie library names to package names. At least as a convention.
If I cannot analize metadata (that defined in language specifiction) at runtime.
This will be possible?import 'library:unittest.html_config';
Bob you not understand me. Prefix does not remove library name collision.
>> This means it will be a static warning to import multiple libraries with the same name.
Not class name collisions but multiple libraries with the same name.
As this is a discussion of the Dart language itself, the [email protected] is a more appropriate place for these discussions.
Misc should be used for discussions that do not fit anywhere else.
You should note that this note has been noted so that the noted note note is noted.
Andrei.
That's exactly what you forgot to write in the beginning of the this message.By the way where the Kasper's proposal?
It is a static warning to import two di erent libraries with the same name.
A widely disseminated library should be given a name that will not conflict with other such libraries. The preferred mechanism for this is using pub, the Dart package manager, which provides a global namespace for libraries, and conventions that leverage that namespace.