This was already proposed. See the whole strawman, but in particular
these sections:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#the_private_declaration
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declaration_scoping
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:private_names#private_declarations_exist_in_a_separate_name_space_parallel_to_the_variable_binding_environment
The last really was too much for some folks. It makes the meaning of an
identifier after . or before : in an object literal depend on a binding
declaration, possibly far above.
We could revive this, but deferring it and simplifying led to
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:private_name_objects
which is in ES6.
/be
Herby Vojčík <mailto:he...@mailbox.sk>
January 20, 2012 3:34 PM
Hello,
since @-prefixed syntax to access private-named properties seems to
win in the private grounds (and it is good thing), I'd like kill two
birds with one stone:
- private keyword seemed to lose its role
- to access property via @foo, I must 'let foo = Name.create()' first
So let us allow:
... {
private foo, bar;
...
agent.@foo = ...;
...
more uses of @foo and @bar
...
}
in imperative (code-containing, semicolon-delimited) blocks and
... {
private [foo, bar],
...
@foo: Date.now(),
@bar: cowboys.length,
...
aMethod () {
... use @foo and @bar
}
}
in declarative (data-describing, comma-delimited) blocks.
In both cases let it be the declaration of (one-time lexical
block-local) private names foo and bar. For any curly block. Without
need to define these singletons explicitly and wrap them so they are
only visible where due,
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
