Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík <mailto:[email protected]>
January 21, 2012 1:33 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declarations_exist_in_a_separate_name_space_parallel_to_the_variable_binding_environment
The last really was too much for some folks. It makes the meaning of an
identifier after . or before : in an object literal depend on a binding
declaration, possibly far above.
Thank you. I did not know of these. The problem in the third one (and
the solution) are really crazy... I would do the early error if there
would be a clash (akin to double let).
The way to resolve the two-lexical-binding-chains issue for private
declarations is not to overload . (member expression; also : in object
literals), by requiring @ instead:
private foo;
@foo = bar; // this-relative private foo
return @foo === other.@foo;
return {@foo: bar};
This helps a lot, but there still _is_ (I only proposed a convenient
shortcut, not some magic special names for private names) an identifier
foo having that private name in its value. So it _would_ clash if foo
was defined in code. But I believe that this can be solved by applying
analogies from let, var, scopes, shadowing etc. all that machinery.
I *think* we may be pretty close to consensus on this, but I'm not sure.
Not in ES6 at this point.
Well, I am pretty hoping for this. It makes thing much more
straightforward (when compared to private in actual class proposal with
private store etc. - private names work and are generic).
The solution that spring to mind is straightforward the use of
now-orphaned private keyword for it seems just right. I only proposed
(as of actual situation, not as revival of old strawman; as a shortcut
for actual calling name.create() at the start of the program or
simulated in compilation phase) to use private to declare such
identifiers, each pre-filled with name.create() once, with block
visibility.
For foo.@bar it is very convenient. I really believe big percentage of
name.create() is of this sort. Not going against
harmony:private_name_objects, just add a convenient use.
I quite agree. Requiring Name.create() or new Name() all over is a drag.
We should keep honing in on more convenient private name object
binding-declaration and binding-use syntax.
/be
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
