Gavin Barraclough <mailto:barraclo...@apple.com>
January 23, 2012 1:22 PM
On Jan 23, 2012, at 1:11 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Ah, that's the detail that I'd missed! - if private names will be
ignored if they are not to the right of @, then presumably my example
*would* result in at least a reference error, since 'x' would not in
scope in 'getX' (unless of course x resolves to the global object...).
Wait, your example was:
{
private x:
o.setX = function(x) {
@x = x;
}
o.getX = function() {
return x; // should be 'return @x;'
}
}
You have private x in the private @-scope chain of both of those
function expressions.
I was wrong in thinking that getX would return the private name? – if
so, this sounds good to me!
You were wrong in the middle alternative I think we skipped too quickly
-- that x is unbound. We'd need a way to reflect from @-scope into value
expression domain. The old private names proposal used #. as a prefix.
Do we want there to be a way to be able to get to a private name
object declared by 'private foo;' syntax, or if developers want to get
their hands on a private name objects that they can pass around should
they just be calling Name.create directly?
I see no problem with an explicit reflection operator, so e.g. getX
could say return @x or @(x) -- assuming we don't that syntax for
something else. Perhaps there is better syntax, but the point is we can
make this require an explicit operation.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
