Class literals: does "public" still make sense?

Mark S. Miller erights at
Sun Sep 25 14:37:25 PDT 2011

On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> If the intent of classes is to provide a declarative syntax for its 'shape'
> then dropping the private syntax in lieu of private name objects seems to
> run counter to this philosophy.
> We did not agree to drop the private declaration syntax at the July TC39
> meeting. Perhaps my understanding of our agreement then does not match
> Marks?

It matches.

> What we agreed to drop was the private(this) straw syntax in the classes
> proposal, in favor of this[x], this[y], for private-declared private name
> objects x and y.

We definitely agreed to drop private(this) and private(other), as these were
only ever placeholders for a needed syntax anyway. My own experience trying
to use them is that they are unbearably verbose. We agreed to use the
this[x] syntax *provided* it works out, depending on the price syntax and
semantics of private names. Btw, I am optimistic it will work out. I just
want to keep that qualifier on the table ;).

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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list