*Only* if that code appears appears within the text of the class of which objectWithPrivateFoo is an instance. "foo" is what we call a "class private instance variable", which is essentially the same degree of encapsulation as Java's "private" fields -- instances of the class can see into other instances of the same class.
If this code appears outside any class, it would be a syntax error. If it appears within a class other that the class of objectWithPrivateFoo, then private(this) returns undefined and private(this).foo thereby throws a TypeError. In the presence of inheritance, again the right analogy is Java's "private". If objectWithPrivateFoo is an instance of C which inherits from B which inherits from A, and if all of them contribute a private member named "foo" to the instance's state, and if your code appears within the text of B, then your expression will evaluate to the "foo" that B contributed to the state of objectWithPrivateFoo. On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Herby Vojčík <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > form what I understood in the class proposal, I can write a code like this: > > (function () { return private(this).foo; }).apply(objectWithPrivateFoo)**; > > and it will work. > Is it so? Isn’t then the notion of "per-object private" impossible having > dynamic language with first-class function and apply/call? > > Herby > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
