On Nov 2, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:17 AM, David Bruant wrote: >> >>>> See my reply to Kam. We're not sugaring instance-private ivars. I am >>>> proposing something we agreed to in Nov. 2008: sugaring class-private >>>> ivars. >>> Ok, that's what I was missing. What were the rationale? use cases? >> > Doesn't the latest harmony class proposal define private within the > constructor? I assume this proposal would supersede the Nov 2008 meeting > Grammar pasted below:
Are you asking a procedural question, or something? If so, bzzzt. :-| I'm hacking a gist forked from Jeremy's. But TC39 is sticking to consensus where we can. The wiki'ed class proposal does have class-private instance variables. It simply mislocates the private declaration inside the constructor. Again, this proposal is in trouble and the gist'ing is an attempt to rescue it, outside the confines of the somewhat-overconstrained TC39 setting. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
