On Sep 29, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Russell Leggett wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Given our apparent desire to have a declarative syntax i don't see why >> something akin to: >> >> Hi, just a voice from the peanut gallery - of the proposals going on right >> now, I really like this proposal a lot. Perhaps it is just my experience >> with Java, but this feels like an intuitive class syntax that also stays >> feeling like JavaScript. I like that it doesn't introduce a new keyword >> "public" which I especially didn't like because there was no "private" >> keyword. > > This syntax is awfully familiar from original-JS2/ES4 (Waldemar's 1999-2003 > effort) and the 2006-2008-era ES4. > > There are some on the committee who object to 'var' in particular; others > object to using scoped binding forms to define properties in (default > mutable) objects. We can go around this block again, though.
The exact token isn't overly important, it could be '@' if we wanted to go down the path of perl and ruby and use random symbols in place of words. I would prefer var, because that makes sense to me -- just like the reuse of function for method decls. Python has demonstrated that people don't have a problem with the same keyword producing functions vs methods on classes (see def). That said I don't now what you mean by "scoped binding forms" so I can't comment on the latter part of your reply. > > >> In regards to private fields/methods in classes, I did also have a thought >> that perhaps you could use proxies to provide a peephole view of a class >> instance. > > Proxies are too heavyweight. We have private name objects: Yeah, I'm not too interested in Proxies as being something to use (or encourage in anyway) for common objects. --Oliver
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
