On Nov 2, 2009, at 3:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
2009/11/2 Brendan Eich <[email protected]>:
Defining accessors on an activation object is nasty,
If you want private getters and setters, you can put them in an
object denoted by a private var:
So you prefer ugly solutions, because the others are nasty?
I don't prefer any of this! You do, but I still am not sure why.
Private variables I understand, and those are doable using closures
(possibly other ways in Harmony).
But private variables defined by var (or let) are not private getters
and setters -- why do you need the latter?
The upshot for memolus is that with is already a deoptimizer that
introduces
non-lexical names onto the scope chain. These can be gettters and
setters
and have arbitrary effects. My point remains that adding getters
and setters
to activations, which are modeled lexically in the absence of eval,
in
strict mode in ES5, and under other such conditions, is a non-
starter.
I didn't get how to use "with" in order to use private objects
(non-lexical names onto the scope chain). Just ignore my example if it
tries to add getter and setter to already activated objects. You don't
have to implement it this way.
How then can they be implemented? Not by interposing a with object,
since that changes |this| binding....
I suggest you try to state concrete use-case examples first, in order
to write down requirements.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
