Is class syntax really necessary ?

Mark S. Miller erights at
Mon May 23 11:52:16 PDT 2011

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Bob Nystrom <rnystrom at> wrote:

> Using "public" to refer to an instance property seems totally weird to me.
> For what it's worth, I agree. I'd prefer var or instance. I've already
> seen at least one example of someone misinterpreting it and doing something
> like:
> class C {
>   public someMethod() { ... }
> }
> Their intent was to define a method on C's prototype (like you usually do)
> and have it be publicly accessible (like they usually are), but the above
> syntax doesn't do that. It's, I believe, an error instead because you're
> trying to define a *per-instance* method and it doesn't allow per-instance
> initializers.
> I'm pretty sure most people reading the above code would not interpret it
> the way the proposal does.

Just to be clear, the current proposal reject this as an early syntax error.
It is only if we extend the public declarations to allow out-of-constructor
initializations that we would get into this specific trouble.

> - bob
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list