Great work Sathya. I'm happy to see this shipping. I'll make sure we
discuss the open spec issue at the next TC39 meeting. My understanding is
that becoming spec-compliant would not be a very large change. I think it's
fine to split out public and private fields like this--this split
corresponds
LGTM. I'm super-excited about this shipping!
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM Sathya Gunasekaran
wrote:
> Contact Emails:
> gsat...@chromium.org
>
> Spec:
> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields
> https://tc39.github.io/proposal-static-class-features/
>
> The linked proposal includes
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:51 AM PhistucK wrote:
>
> Are the specification and implementation compatible with the Babel based
> implementation/interpretation of the feature? After all, previously
> transpiled code could now be interpreted natively...
> Unfortunately, this is also considered
Are the specification and implementation compatible with the Babel based
implementation/interpretation of the feature? After all, previously
transpiled code could now be interpreted natively...
Unfortunately, this is also considered "Web compatibility".
☆*PhistucK*
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:47
LGTM
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM Sathya Gunasekaran
wrote:
> Contact Emails:
> gsat...@chromium.org
>
> Spec:
> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields
> https://tc39.github.io/proposal-static-class-features/
>
> The linked proposal includes private fields, but this intent to ship
>
