Benoit Marchant wrote:
I guess I don't quite understand why it seems contentious to add a
"private" property to property descriptors which already "reserve"
properties like "value", "enumerable" or "writable".
"private" is a meta description of a property like "value",
"enumerable" or "writable.
That feels a more natural extension than adding class to the language.
As David wrote, this does not work in a dynamic language.
function generic_get(obj, prop) {
return obj[prop];
}
obj = {private foo: 42, get bar() { return this.foo; }}; // or
equivalent class syntax
// elsewhere
var steal = generic_get(obj, 'foo');
How do you enforce that only bar can access foo from obj? A private
attribute on a property with a public string-equated name 'foo' does not
help.
The mistake is treating name privacy as a property attribute. Privacy is
not an attribute of property descriptors, it's a restriction on property
names. It is not a static restriction in any sense, rather a capability.
If you keep the private symbol or weak map confined, privacy is assured.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
