Sep 27 meeting notes

Oliver Hunt oliver at
Thu Sep 29 08:47:21 PDT 2011

On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Hunt <oliver at> wrote:
>> Given our apparent desire to have a declarative syntax i don't see why something akin to:
>> Hi, just a voice from the peanut gallery - of the proposals going on right now, I really like this proposal a lot. Perhaps it is just my experience with Java, but this feels like an intuitive class syntax that also stays feeling like JavaScript. I like that it doesn't introduce a new keyword "public" which I especially didn't like because there was no "private" keyword.
> This syntax is awfully familiar from original-JS2/ES4 (Waldemar's 1999-2003 effort) and the 2006-2008-era ES4.
> There are some on the committee who object to 'var' in particular; others object to using scoped binding forms to define properties in (default mutable) objects. We can go around this block again, though.

The exact token isn't overly important, it could be '@' if we wanted to go down the path of perl and ruby and use random symbols in place of words.  I would prefer var, because that makes sense to me -- just like the reuse of function for method decls.  Python has demonstrated that people don't have a problem with the same keyword producing functions vs methods on classes (see def).

That said I don't now what you mean by "scoped binding forms" so I can't comment on the latter part of your reply.

>> In regards to private fields/methods in classes, I did also have a thought that perhaps you could use proxies to provide a peephole view of a class instance.
> Proxies are too heavyweight. We have private name objects:
Yeah, I'm not too interested in Proxies as being something to use (or encourage in anyway) for common objects.


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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list