Yes, this looks pretty solid, although I can't remember seeing it anywhere.
(Sorry for the top-posting; my webmail doesn't want to add the >'s for me so I figured this is better than the alternative.) ________________________________________ From: Herby Vojčík [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 17:20 To: Domenic Denicola Cc: Russell Leggett; Kevin Smith; es-discuss Subject: usable enough private names (was: Re: Using Object Literals as Classes) Domenic Denicola wrote: > Just to contribute to this... er... fun-thread... > > My team uses the closure pattern for our "classes" (i.e. no prototype > methods at all), since we value encapsulation. I can't imagine we're alone. > > So any class solution that doesn't fully incorporate private names (e.g. > by making them awkward via manual Name.create(), etc.) will leave that > audience behind, still using closures and ignoring any new class sugar. Is the current (the last winning alternative afaicr) state good enough for you? In a few words: private x,y; will be desugared to const x = Name.create(), y = Name.create(); So you would need to write your code as: module ... { ... private foo, bar; ... class Alpha .... { ... uses names foo, bar in constructor and methods } ... maybe use the same name in subsequent classes and functions } Herby _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
