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
> "priv"?? "sym"?? Plus as an OO developer, "protected" is what I really
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.
More information about the es-discuss