Look Ma, no "this" (was: ECMAScript Harmony)
kris at sitepen.com
Mon Aug 25 06:39:47 PDT 2008
>> I am surprised this is up for debate, I would also think that we would
>> instance-private by default.
> We can debate lots of things, some that might actually be in play. AFAIK
> this one is not decided in the committee (it's way too early), but IP
> does have some strong proponents.
> AS3, JScript.NET, and Waldemar's original ES4/JS2 work all had CP. Java
> has CP. So do C++ and C#. It should not come as a surprise, therefore, if
> CP has at least to be dealt with by some rationale for IP over against
> CP. "Smalltalk rules" won't cut it ;-).
> I'm happy to have a little debate on this topic, given the different
> precedents. I'm wondering why you think there's no question.
I'm sorry, I had misunderstood. I was thinking CP meant one variable per
class (like indicated by "static"), but CP means the scope of who could
access the private object property. This is a question worthy of debate.
More information about the Es-discuss