> Except I'm not sure the @private could be made to work without creating
> confusing semantics around it, so object literals would still be one step
> behind.
>
> As far as I understand "@private_stuff" would desugar into a name object only
> available in scope of the object literal.
The basic idea of private names is that you don't use names directly, but store
them in a variable and use that variable whenever you need to refer to
something:
var _name = "MyClass_private_a3cfb";
function MyClass(name) {
this[_name] = name;
}
The actual private names are very similar to _name above, but they are not
strings, they are special objects that are never listed anywhere (one step
beyond non-enumerable, if you will).
Thus, the challenge is clear: You have to introduce variables such as _name in
a manner that makes them accessible wherever you need them.
> var o = {
> @private_stuff: bar;
> method1() { }
> }
>
> var o = (function () {
> var private_stuff = name.create();
> var ret = {
> method1() { }
> }
> ret[private_stuff] = bar;
> })();
>
> I personally don't find that confusing.
The latest ideas are about requiring a private section where you declare
private_stuff.
var obj = {
private { private_stuff }
@private_stuff: bar,
method1() {
return this.@private_stuff;
}
}
It does desugar like you mention above. If you use constructor functions
without any tricks, then scope is an issue:
var private_stuff = name.create(); // it would be nice to have support for a
private section here
function MyClass(stuff) {
this.@private_stuff = stuff; // same as this[private_stuff]
}
MyClass.prototype.method1 = function () {
return this.@private_stuff; // same as this[private_stuff]
}
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma
Home: rauschma.de
Blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
