Does private(expr) create a private storage block?

[Andrea Giammarchi]

as a reference could replace "this" for privates and would make even
reading code easier ... private(this) as concept is OK but in practice is
misleading quite a lot ( looks an invoke unrelated with "unique" current
object as argument )

+1 then for private.whatever

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Herby Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk> wrote:

> Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Herby Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk
>> <mailto:herby at mailbox.sk>> wrote:
>>
>>    P.S.: I posted another thread with proposal for shortcut for
>>    private(this), but it still did not reach the list (I see
>>    private(this) as non-elegant, too).
>>
>> -1 to private(this) here too ... but specs are outdated so maybe it's
>> already private.{definition} in the constructor which imo would look
>> more elegant
>>
>
> Exactly that syntax is in my not-yet-on-the-list proposal
> (private.whatever instead of private(this).whatever).
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120120/2d62ff36/attachment.html>