Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
However, when we add private as a ClassElement we have crossed the line to
having things other PropertyMethodDefinition in ClassBody. If this opens the
flood gates for every over possible addition we will be back in the swamp.
I like your message, except for this metaphor. We're in charge of the
syntax. It's not an overflowing river surging against our gates. We can
say "no" and do. I think we've just gone a little too far, without
explicit and rationalized "no" so much as preemptive minimization to get
consensus.
My favorite trope is the game of Jenga. We must not stack too high. But
some pieces really need other pieces under or next to them. "private x"
is one such affordance, and we've heard already that if ES6 requires
const px = Name.create(), py = Name.create(), pz = Name.create();
we'll have failed to make private names usable in some contexts --
definitely in classes (assuming classes make it), IMHO.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
