(resend to list; forgot)
Sorry for late answer, but I lost mails from Monday 4:30-17:30 CET, so I
waited for them to appear in .gz archive to download and import them to
mu inbox again.
Answers below.
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Voj??k<mailto:herby at mailbox.sk>
January 22, 2012 12:34 PM
Brendan Eich wrote:
I suspect your very complicated translation with __prvTable__ etc. is
intended to hoist private somehow, once per declaration in source
rather
than once per evaluation of declaration. That's too restrictive, since
Exactly. By design.
For classes, we have agreed on class-private, rather than
instance-private, instance variables. However you don't need such a
Of course, classes were the primary concern in that proposal of mine.
But I hate special cases. Since it seems you really want private foo to
be shortcut for const foo = Name.create(), I can go with it ...
complex desugaring for classes, and "private x;" not in a class should
be evaluated, not hoisted into singleton-hood somehow.
class Point { ... private x, y; ... } // ignore details of whether in
constructor or class body
should desugar roughly to
let Point = do { private x, y; class Point { ... ... } };
... by generalizing it* so that:
- if private foo appears in code, it is shortcut for const foo =
Name.create()
- if private appears in object literal, it is desugared to
[assignment = ] do { private foo; expression_using_a_literal; }
* I am treating class block as an object literal. I will always try to
make it so that class is in fact an operator on object literal. I am not
good with explaining why it is good, though I am trying. I see real
(future-friendly) reason for not having any kind of special block for class.
so as to achieve the class-private instance variable semantics wanted.
If the class is created as a class expression inside some function or
method, the private name is always different. Yes, the class is also
always different. May lead to little confusion, but nothing critical.
Maybe it is good to raise awareness to this case somewhere.
This does suggest that putting the private declarations in constructor
is a mistake, since they would seem to be generated once per
construction (instance), not once per class (as class-private wants).
Yes.
/be
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
