brendan at mozilla.org
Thu Mar 15 09:49:31 PDT 2012
Kevin Smith wrote:
> That’s why I’m not sure that mixing the two styles is a good idea.
> I agree. I'm not a CS user and I personally prefer C-ish syntax, but
> I'm perfectly willing to steal ideas that might work.
> I'm still hoping that ES.next includes declarative classes, and
> according to the strawman
> <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes>, one of the
> open issues is syntax for accessing private members. @name might work
> well for that.
Definitely, but classes have bigger issues than private syntax, and have
for a while. Class-side inheritance, body syntax, whether there should
be any declarative public syntax, what nested classes mean, static or
'class' members -- that's a partial list from memory.
Minimal classes based on object literals could be done but seem too
minimal. As Waldemar suggested and Allen has worked to develop, they
tend to collapse into object literals (with smaller extensions).
More information about the es-discuss