`P[Protocol.members]` as a shortcut for `Protocol.describe(P).members`?

[LeaVerou]

Protocol.describe() is great for getting a full object literal representation, but one of the most common use cases is going to be Protocol.describe(P).members. Would it make sense to have a Protocol.members symbol for accessing that?
So, instead of Protocol.describe(Protocol.describe(P).members.foo).members.bar, you'd write P[Protocol.members].foo[Protocol.members].bar which is a little more palatable.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

Is there a reason not to just use P.members.foo.members.bar instead, or is that just a design preference?

[michaelficarra]

I think we need to wait until we have a better idea what the shape of the protocol descriptor is before we can make a call on this.

[LeaVerou]

Is there a reason not to just use P.members.foo.members.bar instead, or is that just a design preference?

P.members could be a symbol, e.g. if you have:

protocol P {
	requires members;
}