Oct 1 meeting notes
waldemar at google.com
Mon Oct 4 16:29:41 PDT 2010
On 10/01/10 18:49, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> It's not clear what private names are trying to do well. If they want
>> to provide privacy, they can't be visible to proxies. If they want to
>> provide extension without collision (i.e. namespacing), they should be
>> visible to Object.keys, enumeration, etc.
>> Allen: private syntax is the primary usage of this proposal. Debate
>> over whether there should be two independent concepts of scope or one
>> with a flag.
> I think Allen's position is more on the "unique name" rather than truly "private name" side of the trade-off. FWIW.
Oh, I see that sentence could be parsed in a way I didn't intend. Mea culpa. What I meant when I wrote it was:
Allen: The syntax itself is the primary usage of this proposal. (The syntax happened to use a keyword called "private", but the choice of words is less important.)
More information about the es-discuss