On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > I was wondering if this could be solved in some way without explicitly > referencing the particular Constructor. This isn't a static private issue per > se, rather a suggestion for an operator that would allow one to reference > Monster.allMonsters as Dragon.allMonsters. eg static(Dragon).allMonsters. > Although it would probably be more consistent to resolve Dragon.allMonsters > in the same way properties on the prototype chain are resolved. So we can > probably ignore this suggestion.
No, you're verging on the @ as private member access operator idea. For class-private instance variables we need something like private(this) and private(other), or else this@x and other@x given private member x. A shorthand: @x is this@x (works even in the face of ASI if the binary o@x form has a [no LineTerminator here] restriction on the left of the @). >> On another topic, it does seem like "protected" is inevitable, doesn't it? > > Which may be a slippery slope :( We are already on the slope, the question is traction of the "hold here" people vs. "it's fun, slip some more" users (some users will want protected). > BTW is it premature to ask questions on harmony proposals in their current > state? Sure. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
