I've seen mentions in the recent thread that the goal of the "Private Names"
proposal was to support "private fields" for objects. While that may be a goal
of some participants in the discussion, it is not what I would state as the
goal.
I have two specific use cases in mind for "private names":
1) Allow JavaScript programmers, who choose to do so, to manage the direct
accessibly of object properties. This may mean limiting access to methods of a
particular instance, or to methods of the same "class", or to various friends
or cohorts, etc.
2) Allow third-party property extensions to built-in objects or third-party
frameworks that are guaranteed to not have naming conflicts with unrelated
extensions to the same objects.
Of these two use cases, the second may be the more important.
Note that I emphasized "properties" rather than a new concept such as "private
fields". I believe we should be trying to build upon the conceptual foundation
of the existing JavaScript object model whenever possible. We should strive to
avoid introducing new concepts such as non-property fields into the object
model. (see http://www.wirfs-brock.com/allen/posts/43 for further thoughts on
this topic.)
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
