Static analysis of the constructor should be able to do most of what "public" does, but after consulting the spec again, I see its advantages: - Const classes make public properties unconfigurable and read-only. - Shouldn’t public properties in non-const classes be unconfigurable, too? Are such properties expected to be configured? Read-only properties could be created via "public const".
On Sep 25, 2011, at 4:09 , Mark S. Miller wrote: > Hi Axel, > > This was one of the options we considered. At one point it was the main class > proposal. The problem is that since it looks exactly like an imperative > assignment to a property of "this", it should have the semantics of an > imperative assignment to a property of "this". In fact, the current class > proposal does not disallow it, and gives it exactly these semantics. > > However, when used as the only or main means of initializing an instance, it > defeats one of the main purpose of classes: The shape of the instances of a > given class are no longer a static declarative feature of the class itself. > Again, the contrast with modules is instructive. A CommonJS module exports > only by imperative assignment to properties of an "exports" object. A > proposed ES-next module exports by annotating top level declarations with > "export". As an abstraction mechanism, it would be bizarre to have good > abstraction properties only for abstractions that cannot be multiply > instantiated. > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > Without private members, do we still need the keyword "public" in class > literals? > > For example, instead of > constructor(geometry, materials) { > super(geometry, materials); > > public identityMatrix = new THREE.Matrix4(); > public bones = []; > public boneMatrices = []; > ... > } > I find the following just as intuitive, without the need for the keyword > "public": > constructor(geometry, materials) { > super(geometry, materials); > > this.identityMatrix = new THREE.Matrix4(); > this.bones = []; > this.boneMatrices = []; > ... > } > > Similarly intuitive is something that I’ve seen somewhere – passing through > constructor arguments as members. > class Point { > constructor(this.x, this.y) { > } > } > > I don’t think "public" helps, I think it makes things *less* intuitive. > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > > [email protected] > twitter.com/rauschma > > home: rauschma.de > blog: 2ality.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] twitter.com/rauschma home: rauschma.de blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
