An "extend" operator is a natural companion to <|

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Jul 19 14:53:46 PDT 2011

On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:44 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> 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.

(Missing "until" before "after"?)

Good point, private should not be "syntax solved" first. We need to finish the design, including semantics. Basing class-private instance and even prototype properties on private name objects still makes more sense to me than any new, unobservably different way of specifying private-in-class. Indeed private-on-class-prototype may leak some observable difference (but not the private name object) via Proxies, I'm still not sure.

Another reason to separate private from classes, as dherman's "minimal classes" post suggested.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list