New private names proposal

David Herman dherman at
Thu Dec 16 17:03:19 PST 2010

> I'll address this last point first, since this seems to be the core issue. The question I am raising is: given soft fields, why do we need private names?

I didn't see that asked as a question; I saw it asserted, but not opened for discussion.

And I disagree. Now, I happen to think it's not worth blessing libraries simply because they could be optimized, but I do not see soft fields as supplanting private names -- especially because of usability -- but especially because I happen to like weak maps very much, and very much hope for a world where ES a) makes it easy to write (any number of) soft field libraries and b) makes it *easy* to store encapsulated data in objects.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list