On Jul 8, 2011, at 6:36 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 7, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Gavin Barraclough wrote: > > > Ah, I see. It's a fair point, but isn't this already a hazard that the > > language faces? > > Not with private names. > > There's also something that was probably discussed but never got to this list: > > Private instance properties were considered to be accessible by all instances > of the class. That's a new concept in ES. Were there arguments for keeping > instance private properties private to the instance?
Yes, on this list, going back to the Harmony Oslo July 2008 meeting, with followup at the "Kona" Nov. 2008 meeting. Mark may have notes from the more recent sub-group of TC39ers who championed classes. My recollection is that we chose class-private for both usability and private-name equivalence, but we still have open issues on how one accesses private foo in both |this| and |other| for a dyadic operator method, e.g. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
