> Still, we moved private name objects ahead, and rightly so, without adding > syntax for them.
That makes sense, as it doesn’t preclude sugar in the future. One thing to consider: Do private names need to be globally unique or is unique-per-class enough? The former enables many intriguing other applications, but it might preclude moving to a nicer syntax later on. I used to think I’d never need private properties and would just prefix "_" to internal names. But then @juandopazo pointed out that this does not protect you against name clashes – a big issue once we have traits, but already relevant with subclassing. > Syntax is hard (I underestimate this sometimes). Keeping all of the syntax stuff straight in one’s mind seems to me like studying law. Many ideas that seem great at first sight turn out to be impractical, due to some pesky old law from 1890. Alas, there is no other way to do this. -- 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
