Re: EcmaScript Proposal – Private methods and fields proposals.
michael.lee.theriot at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 13:48:07 UTC 2018
This matches my initial perceptions of private properties in JS; exactly identical to regular properties but private, which I have not seen preserved in the other proposals.
> On Apr 13, 2018, at 4:38 AM, Sultan <thysultan at gmail.com> wrote:
> The proposal is an explainer with regards to an alternative sigil-less syntax to back private fields/methods.
> >What does private(this)[property] do?
> "private(this)[property]" and alternatively "private[property]" or "private.property" all invoke access of a private "property" on the "this" instance of the class, symmetrical to the syntax/function nature of both the "super" and "import" keywords.
> >How do private fields come into existence?
> Unless i've misunderstood what is meant by "come into existence" the proposals makes use of the reserved "private" keyword to define private fields i.e "private id = 1".
> >What's private about private fields?
> Outside of a private fields provider class, private fields/methods would not be accessible.
> >How do you prevent them from being forged or stuck onto unrelated objects?
> What do you mean by this?
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com> wrote:
>> I read that proposal but don't understand what the proposal actually is. At this point it's a bit of syntax with no semantics behind it. What does private(this)[property] do? How do private fields come into existence? How do you prevent them from being forged or stuck onto unrelated objects? What's private about private fields?
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss