On Oct 2, 2011, at 4:43 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:private_name_objects
>
> I would like to avoid reifying the names of private properties (as variables
> holding name objects). Wouldn’t it be enough if they were private relative to
> the current class/constructor? Then the following would work (strawman
> syntax):
>
> function MyClass(pwd) {
> this[private(MyClass, "pwd")] = pwd;
You just reified, in the square brackets.
Worse, you seem to make it possible for anyone with access to MyClass to pass a
string into this private pseudo-function (I hope it cannot be passed around as
a funarg!) and get out the reified private name!
If you mean only for the private(C,id) form to be valid in [], then surely we
should be talking about shorter and less special and wrongly general-looking
syntax, e.g. infix @.
> }
> MyClass.prototype.isPwd = function(pwd) {
> return this[private(MyClass, "pwd")] === pwd;
> }
>
With the current proposal, you can do something like this:
{
import create from "@name";
const pwdName = create("pwd");
function MyClass(pwd) {
this[pwdName] = pwd;
}
MyClass.prototype.isPwd = function(pwd) {
return this[pwdName] === pwd;
}
}
It might be too verbose to have to import create from "@name" and call it. We
can address that with sugar or shorter API design. But that's not what you were
addressing.
/be
> Another consideration: private methods are sometimes helpers that have to be
> unit-tested. Thus, one should be able to access them “from outside”. That’s
> something you can’t do if you use a closure for private data.
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>
> [email protected]
> twitter.com/rauschma
>
> home: rauschma.de
> blog: 2ality.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
