Often times, when I use a class field a lot, I create a local binding for it, so that I don't have to prefix every appearance with `this.`:
```js
class Foo {
bar = 1;
method() {
const { bar } = this;
/* … */
}
}
```
The same approach would currently be illegal syntax if `bar` is declared to be
private:
```js
class Foo {
#bar = 1;
method() {
const { #bar } = this;
/* … */
}
}
```
How is the destructuring assignment supposed to behave anyway? Introduce a
local `bar` binding, just like above?
Whatever it should do, even defining an explicit name for the binding is
currently illegal:
```js
class Foo {
#bar = 1;
method() {
const { #bar: bar } = this;
/* … */
}
}
```
This feels really asymmetric to public fields and has come up in the class
fields proposal[1] before, though it was suggested to defer it to a separate
proposal.
Is someone currently working on said proposal?
[1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/issues/4
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
