> >> Might it be reasonable to make private properties be regular properties on >> the object, with a new 'private' attribute, similar to the existing >> writable/configurable attributes? From the perspective of code outside of >> the associated class, an instance's private property would be non-readable, >> non-writable and non-configurable (likely also non-enumerable?), with any >> attempt to get, set, or delete the property failing in a similar manner to >> an existing writable/configurable attribute violation. It would be great to >> hear your thoughts on this. > > See above -- private means you can't probe, let alone collide, for the > private name from outside of the abstraction. Private name objects prove much > more than a single-bit 'private' attribute -- they allow private, protected, > friend, shared-secret, and public-but-guarnateed-unique names. > > /be
Got it, cheers gents. G. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
