Le 20/01/2013 18:59, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
I disagree with Brendan when he says "to use weakmaps for class
private instance methods/variables"... well... it depends on what
"use" means:
The spec is allowed to /use/ anything it needs to make the class
private syntax work. If the spec says that private properties are
like properties but aren't enumerated in Object.gOPN calls, fine. If
the spec says that private properties require a lookup to some object
-> value map, fine (but misleading, I agree).
I don't think we disagree.
If there were no observable differences at all between weak maps and
private symbols, we would have only one. Since there are, and since
you propose to map private-in-class syntax onto weak maps in part on
account of these differences (viz, proxying and whitelist population
without privacy-leaks), here we are.
I don't understand, this paragraph went too quickly.
I understand that you're saying that the proposal I defend (which
includes getting rid of private symbols) relies on the differences
between private symbols and weakmaps and hence both are necessary?
Am I fully misunderstanding?
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
