Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 15, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
One thing to consider: I would expect IDEs to help with this. For example,
Eclipse does a pretty good job of letting one forget that one has to import
things before one can use them.
Maybe, but forget IDEs. I think Kevin's point about private @foo, @bar, ...;
being required in a class using those 25 private members will get old, fast.
But if you want private symbols you are going to have to say something anyway to
distinguish them from regular "public" unique name symbols.
At the last TC39 meeting, I believe we agreed that I should expand the private
name syntax proposal to include allowing private as a prefix to concise
methods. So you could say:
class Foo {
private @x() {}
private @y() {}
}
as an alternative to:
class Foo {
private @x, @y;
@x() {}
@y() {}
}
I am not very fond of this syntax, I'd better not to have it there,
nevertheless.
But if I embrace it, I have a question: what about non-private symbols?
Do they need to be explicitly declared elsewhere, but privates can be
declared online?
IOW, shouldn't we then allow also
class Foo {
private @x() {}
public @y() {}
}
And if yes doesn't this mean it is better to use `public` instead of
`symbol` in standalone non-private symbol declarations, as well, for the
consistency?
Allen
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
