Lexically Scoped Object Extensions (was About private names)

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Mar 22 08:05:00 PDT 2011


On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:28 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:

>> Does this matter? In Java it matters much less because of types. In JS, it matters more but an IDE could still help (as in Java, but without types -- just lexical use-to-def connection-making by the IDE).
> There would be several private names per type though each one preventing any occurrence of that name within any identifier in any member expression at that scope.

Unless spelled with brackets and quotes, yes.


> This would complicate things like minifiers.

It would, but life's rough for minifiers already. I'm not dismissing this but it's not make or break.


> Not to mention trying to mix say svg, canvas and Dom within some framework since they all use common member names such as element, node, children, attributes, etc. 

You would not use those names in private declarations.

Remember the private declaration is optional. You can always index.

/be



More information about the es-discuss mailing list