Le 02/11/2011 22:56, Jake Verbaten a écrit : > >> I don't think I've ever heard an active JavaScript developer, who >> has been programming in JavaScript longer than 6 months, ask for >> private class or instance variables. > Your own code: > > https://github.com/mikeal/npmjs.org/commit/c0d9cc77e79504b9a7c23b4fac735dde97444054#L3R10 > Line 35, you define the function stopBuffering (keeping only > relevant parts): > ---- > function File (options) { > > var stopBuffering = function () { > // ... > } > > } > ---- > Why didn't you do this.stopBuffering = function(){}? > > Maybe you used the keyword "var", but you effectively created a > private method of your "File" class. With a class syntax, you > would have used the "private" keyword to achieve the same thing. > Maybe you don't call it this way, but you use (and de facto ask > for) privacy. > > > I think making such broad statements as "every local variable is > actually a 'private' variable" is just plain silly. What is the difference between a local variable and a private object property? Both reduce access to the data they store. Private properties are only accessible from the body of a given number of functions, local variables too. What is the difference? I don't get why we would push 'let' to ES.next and not private properties.
> To me that looks like a utility method for code organisation points. > > "private" means its a private method/data that's used in other methods > of an object. That particular function is not used in any method. > > And no, with class syntax it would not be private, it would still be a > utility function inside the constructor. You're right, I didn't analyse the code enough. Sorry, my mistake. But my point remains. Why make a "utility function"? What is "utility"? Why isn't it public like everything else? David
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
