>
> As Allen mentioned, I think it would really help if you could show, say,
> real Java (or C# or C++) code and explain what it can do that JavaScript +
> private names can’t.
>
(Sorry for that double-post, BTW)
I can't : )
It's an abstract guarantee. Private methods (in Java let's say) give me
the guarantee that I can refactor at will with them without any externally
visible changes. Privately named methods in JS do not.
Look at it this way: if I have a method that looks like this:
private helperMethod() { ... }
and it's called from another method like this:
toString() { this.@helperMethod(); }
someone coming from Java or C# is going to expect a nonvirtual method
invokation. See the Java spec for details [1]. OK - everything is dynamic
in JS, so they're just "confused", right? Why even invite that confusion
with misleading syntax?
"private" syntax isn't a part of the current class proposal, I know. I'm
just trying to think ahead - and to strike at the heart of what a "class"
in JS ought to be.
kevin
[1]: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.12
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
