An "extend" operator is a natural companion to <|
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Jul 19 14:44:39 PDT 2011
On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
>> // "private" before a section lets you declare private members on that object.
>> private new:
> Not sure we need 'new' there given lack of private prototype properties in the proposal. It's a bit verbose. Probably even if we add private prototype properties we can let private: (in this idea you've pitched) default to private instance.
Any useful for class design is going to want to be able to have non-public methods. And there are good use cases for private data that is shared among instances (for example example large lookup tables).
Also, ust a reminder that if "privateness" is based upon Private Names then there are point of use issues with undecorated property name identifiers. EG:
foo.health //foo might or might not be an instance of this class
which is why we might need to distinguish
foo at health
introduces a new Private Name valued lexical binding for "health" or (even @health) then we need to deal with the scoping of that binding.
These were largely topics of another thread which I want to get back to with some new thoughts. But these issue may have impact of details of the direct of the design discussion in this thread. I don't think it works to try to add private property access issues into the design after everything else is settled.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss