On 2010-12-23 16:36, thaddee yann tyl wrote: > The private names proposal has a lot of good ideas, but their use is > not obvious. > The reasons I see for that are: > The "private a;" declaration: > * changes meaning of all obj.a in scope > * looks like a scoped variable, not a private element of an object > * is not generative-looking > ... which makes it harder to understand, and use.
I agree with these criticisms.
> I find that David Herman's proposal fixes those issues:
>> But your idea suggests yet another alternative worth adding to our growing
>> pantheon. We could allow for the scoping of private names, but always
>> require them to be prefixed by the sigil. This way there's no possibility of
>> mixing up public and private names. So to use an earlier example from this
>> thread (originally suggested to me by Allen):
>>
>> function Point(x, y) {
>> private #x, #y;
>> this.#x = x;
>> this.#y = y;
>> }
>
> I understand that the number sign gets really heavy and annoying after
> some time. As a result, I suggest a simpler syntax, "private
> .secret;":
>
[...]
> private .a;
> k..a = o;
I find this less readable, and I think it would be easy to miss the
difference between . and .. in larger expressions. Also, the .. operator
is used in other languages for ranges.
In any case, let's not bikeshed about this yet. Either .# or @ is fine
for discussion. ('.#' is perhaps more suited to being viewed as a
variant of '.' with a private field selector, and '@' as an operator
distinct from '.')
--
David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
