Modular At-Names

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Tue Oct 16 11:07:37 PDT 2012


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>>> The module vs. let scope is also interesting. Allen said the literature favored the latter but that wasn't clear from my nowhere-near-comprehensive reading.
>>> Presumably that is a large part of our motivation for providing lexically scoped let/const/function/class rather than the semi-global function scoping.
>> True for bindings but not clear for private/friend visibility qualifiers. Other languages do not all block-scope those, more the reverse: class or package/library scope.
>
> Yes, but what are we talking about here.

If that's a question, see Kevin's head post. This is a thread about an 
alternative. It's not necessary to rehash your at-name proposal, which 
is clear enough. What would help IMHO is comparing it to Kevin's or 
other similar such things (Dart's, e.g.) based on use-cases and actual 
user experience.

> "priv"?? "sym"?? Plus as an OO developer, "protected" is what I really 
> want...

Bletch, barf, and too long :-P.

> We also have the issue that we have orthogonal differences 
> (reflection) between "public" and private symbols and as long as we 
> have them, there needs be a way to designate which is intended. The 
> root question might be whether the symbol approach truly provides a 
> usable solution for the encapsulation use case. Allen 

Agreed, this thread proposed an alternative that actually threw out 
privacy in order to avoid collisions and match today's JS patterns.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list