Hello. Two things.
1. If keyword "private" is used for defining the private names (so it is already "used"), why not to use reserved word "public" to define unique names?
2. As for protected scoping issues (though I do not like it, since it makes classes more heavy by looking for @protectedBindings), I would vote for the last proposal, that is, explicitly "import" protected name into class' scope. But the "if there is an inherited, use it, otherwise create new" is tricky, your example shows why: you call super.@validate there. If there wasn't any super @validate, the code breaks.
So for this case, I'd propose not only "protected @foo;" as a means of "use inherited, if none, create your own", but also "protected super @foo;" (or even only "super @foo;", eventually making "super @foo;" silently assume "protected " before itself) as a means of "use inherited, if none, fail".
Herby Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The strawman is at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:syntactic_support_for_private_names Allen ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
