Look Ma, no "this" (was: ECMAScript Harmony)

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Aug 25 11:31:32 PDT 2008

On Aug 25, 2008, at 6:39 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:

>>> I am surprised this is up for debate, I would also think that we   
>>> would
>>> want
>>> 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.
>> /be
> 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.
> Thanks,

Yeah, that confusion happened briefly in Oslo. Class-private vs.  
instance-private instance variables might be the long-winded solution  
to ambiguity. CPIV vs. IPIV? Yuck.

Properties of the class constructor, with appropriate attributes, AKA  
class statics, are not controversial AFAICT. There ought to be sugar.  
It might well use the static keyword.


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list