class-private syntax in ES6 (was: ES6, ES7, ES8 and beyond. A Proposed Roadmap.)
waldron.rick at gmail.com
Sun Apr 28 13:23:45 PDT 2013
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> Brian Di Palma wrote:
>> Another mail that I expected to receive more attention that hasn't...
@Brian, This is the second time you've opened a thread reply with a rebuke
regarding (lack of) speedy of response. Just saying...
> For some reason my mail program doesn't thread your reply to my o.p. Here
> it is in the archive, FWIW:
> We're London based so we had attendants at JQueryUK and the announcement
>> private class state in ES6 was a surprise, a pleasant one but still
>> Is it the case that the announcement was jumping the gun?
> Rembmer, my words were that "I threw up a sketch" -- not a final
> masterpiece, not the Mona Lisa.
> However as your meeting notes excerpts show, we still don't quite have
> consensus on classes _per se_, without including private syntax in ES6.
> This is an agenda item for the upcoming TC39 meeting. We should try to
> build on the work by Mark and Tom at
> and make progress, whether that work ends up in ES6 or ES7 for prudential
> Needless to say for programming with large code bases it would be
>> excellent to have private state.
The introduction of class in ES6 should not be blocked (or postponed until
ES7) by a lack of class (specific) private declaration form. I understand
and appreciate Brendan's remarks re: double-blind consensus, but politely
disagree with the notion that we _must_ produce a specific syntactic form
when private state can be achieved with the use of a WeakMap or a Symbol:
I've always been an @-name supporter and have had a pending revisitation
agenda item for the last two meetings, deferred in favor of the bigger fish
we had to fry ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss