为什么在 `#js {}` 中不允许使用关键字限定符？

Question

$ planck 
ClojureScript 1.10.339
cljs.user=> #js {:foo/bar 1}
JavaScript literal keys must be strings or unqualified keywords.

https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript/blob/f289ffee2270567f7976d45012a0a52c38eb6488/src/main/clojure/cljs/tagged_literals.cljc#L63-L66

(defn valid-js-literal-key? [k]
  (or (string? k)
      (and (keyword? k)
           (nil? (namespace k)))))

Answer 1

JavaScript 字面量只是 JavaScript 对象。键必须是字符串，因此支持关键字功能的价值不大。实际上，关键字在 JS 字面量中仅仅是字符串的糖，节省一个字符，同时看起来像是 Clojure 的风格，但可能会引入对支持内容的某些混淆。因此，这里的最大担忧是引入更多的混淆——支持命名空间引出一定的预期，即命名空间别名。

Answer 2

我会在这里直接粘贴 Slack 的讨论内容

至少，缺乏qualifier别名支持

dnolen [3:29 PM]
 @misha it's just not supported and it isn't going to be
you're not making maps
you're making JS literals
so little value in keyword stuff
dnolen [3:41 PM]
 `#js {:foo 1}` is identical to `#js {"foo" 1}`
there are no keywords
misha [3:41 PM]
 I was thinking about dev time "support", like using qualifiers to aid autocomplete, and narrow down keys set for a particular js obj I might build. So in source code it'd be e.g.`#js {:css/width 10}` and in js, ofc `{"width": 10}`
dnolen [3:42 PM]
 like I said there are no keywords, just strings
introducing namespacing brings along other expectations
misha [3:43 PM]
 well, allowing keywords there brought along my expectation :)
dnolen [3:43 PM]
 keywords aren't allowed
it's just a syntactical thing
misha [3:43 PM]
 
```cljs.user=> #js {:bar 1}
#js {:bar 1}```
dnolen [3:44 PM]
 I already explained this above
no keywords
when this was originally done as a surface syntax it was only for the convenience of saving a character
misha [3:44 PM]
 well, yes, I understand, that in js obj it'll be string. but I type in keyword on keyboard.
dnolen [3:45 PM]
 i.e. `#js {"bar" ...}`
@misha but you're misunderstand what I'm saying
real keywords do a bunch of things
misha [3:45 PM]
 I'm very glad that convenience is there
dnolen [3:45 PM]
 and have a lot of semantics
bringing anymore stuff just into `#js` isn't desirable
and your confusion shows that saving a keystroke was probably questionable design idea from one perspective (edited) 
anyways - no changes coming here - what's there is what's there
misha [3:49 PM]
 I would not say I am confused. It just seems to me that what I ask is the same as saving 1 char. I do not expect any qualified keyword semantics to get transferred to js obj. What I'm saying, is "there is a value in *typing in* qualified keyword because of IDE suggests assists" the same way there is a value in "saving a char" which is already there.
dnolen [3:49 PM]
 I understand quite clearly what you're saying, but I'm also explaining why it isn't a good idea
misha [3:49 PM]
 and I'm not asking for change. just wondering why that was explicitly prohibited.
dnolen [3:49 PM]
 I already explained that ^
misha [3:49 PM]
 you did, thank you (edited) 
dnolen [3:54 PM]
 @misha one typical read time thing that people might expect if you allow this is namespace aliasing
`#js {::foo/bar ...}`
no interest in supporting stuff like this
that is what you're proposing opens more questions
misha [3:56 PM]
 yeah, that's a very good example. thank you

和键冲突

[31m]
dpsutton  What would the canonical JavaScript representation of :ns/key be?
[9m]
misha  @dpsutton there is none, I was asking from another point of view
[7m]
dpsutton  i don't follow. but what is your suggestion for what `#js {:css/width 3}` would be?
[7m]
misha  `{"width" 3}`
[6m]
dpsutton  and what about `#js {:css/width 3 :panel/width 5}`
[3m]
misha  {"width" 5}, or `Map literal contains duplicate key`
but good point