Public/private namespaces in harmony classes proposal

Mark S. Miller erights at
Thu Jul 7 21:49:57 PDT 2011

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Gavin Barraclough <barraclough at>wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> In the harmony classes proposal,
> , I'm interested in
> understanding the following issue:
>        One or two namespaces for public properties and private instance
> variables [RESOLVED two, Mark’s argument]
> Do you remember if this argument was made in email, and if so would anyone
> happen to know where to look to find this (I've tried a little googling to
> no avail!), I'd be interested in understanding the rationale behind this
> decision.
I don't think it was made in before in email. Here goes:

For non-const classes, their instances are extensible by default. Even if
you disagree with this default, I think we generally agree that there should
at least be an option to make extensible instances.

Say public and private share one namespace. Say extensible instance X has
private instance property 'foo'. Say a client of X tries to extend it with a
public 'foo' property. What happens?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list