On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Gavin Barraclough <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Mark, > > In the harmony classes proposal, > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes , I'm interested in > understanding the following issue: > > One or two namespaces for public properties and private instance > variables [RESOLVED two, Mark’s argument] > > Do you remember if this argument was made in email, and if so would anyone > happen to know where to look to find this (I've tried a little googling to > no avail!), I'd be interested in understanding the rationale behind this > decision. > > I don't think it was made in before in email. Here goes: For non-const classes, their instances are extensible by default. Even if you disagree with this default, I think we generally agree that there should at least be an option to make extensible instances. Say public and private share one namespace. Say extensible instance X has private instance property 'foo'. Say a client of X tries to extend it with a public 'foo' property. What happens? -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
