On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Bob Nystrom wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>> // "private" before a section lets you declare private members on that
>> object.
>> private new:
>> health;
>
> Not sure we need 'new' there given lack of private prototype properties in
> the proposal. It's a bit verbose. Probably even if we add private prototype
> properties we can let private: (in this idea you've pitched) default to
> private instance.
>
Any useful for class design is going to want to be able to have non-public
methods. And there are good use cases for private data that is shared among
instances (for example example large lookup tables).
Also, ust a reminder that if "privateness" is based upon Private Names then
there are point of use issues with undecorated property name identifiers. EG:
foo.health //foo might or might not be an instance of this class
which is why we might need to distinguish
foo[health]
from
foo[@health]
or possibly
foo@health
Also, if
private new;
health
introduces a new Private Name valued lexical binding for "health" or (even
@health) then we need to deal with the scoping of that binding.
These were largely topics of another thread which I want to get back to with
some new thoughts. But these issue may have impact of details of the direct of
the design discussion in this thread. I don't think it works to try to add
private property access issues into the design after everything else is settled.
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
