It is not clear what private state will look like. The relationship work Mark has done looks promising but it is not yet clear that we need both private state and unique symbols.
The intent of this proposal was to open the door for alternatives, that can be used in ES6 and then make sure we get the whole thing right in ES7 (which should be following shortly after ES6) On Jul 25, 2013 3:30 PM, "Brandon Benvie" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/25/2013 1:31 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > >> https://gist.github.com/arv/**0bbb184710016e00d56c<https://gist.github.com/arv/0bbb184710016e00d56c> >> >> The main goal of this proposal is to let us postpone the discussion >> about private state until ES7, making sure that we solve the main use >> cases. >> > > Differences from Symbols: > > * enumerable > * visible to Object.getOwnPropertyNames > * no way to differentiate a unique string from any other string > * no easy debug representation (since you can't differentiate from a > string) > > I'm curious why the desire to not have unique symbols? I was under the > impression that private Symbols or relationships or whatever could be > punted without affecting unique Symbols, which serve a different use case > (name spacing and encapsulation, not security). This proposal covers name > spacing while ignoring encapsulation. > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
