Class literals: does "public" still make sense?

[Brendan Eich]

On Sep 25, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote:

> class Monster {
>   // The contextual keyword "constructor" followed by an argument
>   // list and a body defines the body of the class’s constructor
>   // function. public and private declarations in the constructor
>   // declare and initialize per-instance properties. Assignments
>   // such as "this.foo = bar;" also set public properties.
>   constructor(name, healthvalue) {
>     public name = name;
>     module name from "@name";
>     private health = name.create();

No, that's silly. If there is to be private declaration syntax, it should generate the private name, class-private (shared among instances). What you just spelled out wants 'const' not 'private', but hoisted to an outer closure. The way you wrote it, each constructor call would make a new and unique private name, so you'd get instance-private instance variables, not class-private.


>     this[health] = healthvalue;

This part is what we agreed to in July.

/be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110925/896616fa/attachment.html>