Just as the private(this) is used to expose the private instance record, could
static([[Constructor]]) be introduced to provide access to the union of static
properties across the set of constructor objects? (I know that their is some
concern about the lengthy syntax of private())
Regarding
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:45 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
Just as the private(this) is used to expose the private instance record,
Please read
private(this), e.g., is
unbearably verbose;
leaks an implementation detail.
from
Sorry iPad autocorrection strikes again... The comment towards the bottom
should read:
I was attempting to keep as close as possible to the terminology used in the
proposal.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Kam Kasravi kamkasr...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Brendan Eich
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 2:45 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
Just as the private(this) is used to expose the private instance record,
Please read
private(this), e.g., is
- unbearably verbose;
- leaks an implementation
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Kam Kasravi kamkasr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Which may be a slippery slope :( BTW is it premature to ask questions on
harmony proposals in their current state?
Hi Kam, not at all. Such questions are welcomed, and will provoke us to
clarify these proposals quickly.
On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
I was wondering if this could be solved in some way without explicitly
referencing the particular Constructor. This isn't a static private issue per
se, rather a suggestion for an operator that would allow one to reference
Monster.allMonsters
On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
The private record especially views as an object is a kind of placeholder
too. It doesn't help to think of it as a record. It probably does not help to
think of it as an object, either, especially if you cannot get at it via
anything like
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Btw, in both C++ and Java, the semantics of protected is a mess, in
different ways.
Sure. Let's not make those mistakes. Non-fixable in your view?
Not necessary in my view. There are all sorts of old constructs that
Mark Miller wrote
Actually, it isn't another topic. It's why Kam's GilaMonster cannot see
Monster's health. private means private to the class, not private to
the class and subclasses. protected would mean the second, and no, I don't
think it's inevitable.
Aren't there also motivations
On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Btw, in both C++ and Java, the semantics of protected is a mess, in
different ways.
Sure. Let's not make those mistakes. Non-fixable in your view?
Not necessary in
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
We can definitely leave protected out. My seems inevitable was in
response to Kam bringing it up via a question that I expect will be
frequently asked.
I really hope we can. My interest in adding class syntax to JS was
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Bob Nystrom rnyst...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
We can definitely leave protected out. My seems inevitable was in
response to Kam bringing it up via a question that I expect will be
frequently
On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
Btw, in both C++ and Java, the semantics of protected is a mess, in
different ways.
Sure. Let's not make those
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.comwrote:
Are static members inherited? What happens in the last line of the
following code?
class Monster {
static allMonsters = [];
constructor() {
Monster.allMonsters.push(this);
}
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Peter Michaux petermich...@gmail.comwrote:
Based on my understanding of what the desugared code would be, the
last line above would be an error because Dragon.allMonsters is
undefined.
That's correct. Do you have any examples of code where inheriting the
15 matches
Mail list logo
