On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Brian Di Palma wrote: >> >>> Another mail that I expected to receive more attention that hasn't... >> >> > @Brian, This is the second time you've opened a thread reply with a rebuke > regarding (lack of) speedy of response. Just saying... > > >> >> For some reason my mail program doesn't thread your reply to my o.p. Here >> it is in the archive, FWIW: >> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**pipermail/es-discuss/2013-**April/029969.html<https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-April/029969.html> >> >> >> We're London based so we had attendants at JQueryUK and the announcement >>> of >>> private class state in ES6 was a surprise, a pleasant one but still >>> surprising. >>> >>> Is it the case that the announcement was jumping the gun? >>> >> >> Rembmer, my words were that "I threw up a sketch" -- not a final >> masterpiece, not the Mona Lisa. >> >> However as your meeting notes excerpts show, we still don't quite have >> consensus on classes _per se_, without including private syntax in ES6. >> >> This is an agenda item for the upcoming TC39 meeting. We should try to >> build on the work by Mark and Tom at >> >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/**doku.php?id=strawman:**relationships<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:relationships> >> >> and make progress, whether that work ends up in ES6 or ES7 for prudential >> reasons. >> >> >> Needless to say for programming with large code bases it would be >>> excellent to have private state. >>> >> >> Agreed! > > > The introduction of class in ES6 should not be blocked (or postponed until > ES7) by a lack of class (specific) private declaration form. I understand > and appreciate Brendan's remarks re: double-blind consensus, but politely > disagree with the notion that we _must_ produce a specific syntactic form > when private state can be achieved with the use of a WeakMap or a Symbol: > https://gist.github.com/rwldrn/5478221 > > Mark Miller and I had an offline discussion that clarified for me that the example using a symbol as a property key would allow the value to be discovered via ES6's Object.getOwnPropertyKeys() which returns the result of the internal [[OwnPropertyKeys]] method. The mistake I had made was assuming that where [[OwnPropertyKeys]] mentions "private Symbol" that it actually just meant the thing one Symbol that is just a Symbol—which is incorrect. Rick > I've always been an @-name supporter and have had a pending revisitation > agenda item for the last two meetings, deferred in favor of the bigger fish > we had to fry ;) > > Rick > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
