On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le 17/01/2013 19:30, Mark S. Miller a écrit : >>> >>> 2) Until ES7 provides private >> >> I may have missed something. In the harmony proposal on the wiki [1] (is the >> wiki down? I'm looking at google's cache), > > I don't know, but seems down for me too. But the classes accepted for > ES6 are "maximally minimal" and contain no field declarations of any > kind.
Back up. Maximin is at <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:maximally_minimal_classes> > >> I see that syntax for private >> properties is in the proposal and nothing suggests it's postpone until ES7. >> I see in recent notes that the @-syntax isn't fully agreed upon, but that's >> where I'm at. Is there no private syntax at all for classes in ES6? > > Correct. > > >> >> >>> there will be transpilers that provide actual privacy by other means. >> >> What syntax and semantics will these transpilers use if TC39 doesn't reach >> an agreement? >> >> >>> 3) Most important, and most unsaid by my previous email: In ES6, since >>> there's no built-in class/object privacy mechanism, ES6 programmers in >>> general and ES6 class programmers specifically have to achieve real >>> privacy by other means -- by engaging in some pattern using other >>> constructs. Previous conversations assumed that these patterns would >>> be expressed in terms of private symbols. Absent private symbols, the >>> pattern shown by my expansion above, as painful as it is, is what will >>> be expressed manually. By the time ES7 rolls out, there will be a lot >>> of that code. >> >> People who care will use a transpiler (and I personally don't care if the >> generated code is slightly slower than what it could be natively or ugly). >> People who don't care about privacy will go on with their lives writing >> JavaScript as they do in ES5. >> That's an ephemeral problem in my opinion and isn't the "most important" >> point. Am I underestimating it? > > I believe you are. For abstractions with small numbers of methods and > no interesting inheritance, I find the objects-as-closures pattern + > weakmaps for class-private instance variables, as in our recent paper, > to be more pleasant than the likely ES7 class syntax anyway; and much > simpler to understand. And it's way more pleasant than the maximin > classes accepted for ES6. We will see a lot of code manually using > WeakMaps in this way. > > >> >> David >> >> [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
