Modular At-Names

Yehuda Katz wycats at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 07:21:44 PDT 2012


Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325


On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. The one-class-per-file pattern is near universal.  When there is more
> than one class, they tend to be in minor supporting roles (like
> exception-type subclasses or simple data structures).
>
> 2. Adding private, protected, etc. declarations to classes adds a good
> deal of baggage to the syntax that many developers will balk at.  I'm not
> sure how to argue this yet, but it just doesn't have the "spirit" of
> javascript.
>

More importantly, it's too easy to mess up.


> 3. "Implicit declaration" is the wrong way to think about modular
> at-names.  At-names, in this design, are simply *namespaced identifiers*.
>  Since modules already define an implicit namespace, it's reasonable and
> convenient to hang these special identifiers off of that namespace.
>

I think this makes sense. What do you think about the typo problem? Not a
major issue?


>
> Kevin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121016/a31f0b63/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list