Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Oct 16, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
The module vs. let scope is also interesting. Allen said the literature favored
the latter but that wasn't clear from my nowhere-near-comprehensive reading.
Presumably that is a large part of our motivation for providing lexically
scoped let/const/function/class rather than the semi-global function scoping.
True for bindings but not clear for private/friend visibility qualifiers. Other
languages do not all block-scope those, more the reverse: class or
package/library scope.
Yes, but what are we talking about here.
If that's a question, see Kevin's head post. This is a thread about an
alternative. It's not necessary to rehash your at-name proposal, which
is clear enough. What would help IMHO is comparing it to Kevin's or
other similar such things (Dart's, e.g.) based on use-cases and actual
user experience.
"priv"?? "sym"?? Plus as an OO developer, "protected" is what I really
want...
Bletch, barf, and too long :-P.
We also have the issue that we have orthogonal differences
(reflection) between "public" and private symbols and as long as we
have them, there needs be a way to designate which is intended. The
root question might be whether the symbol approach truly provides a
usable solution for the encapsulation use case. Allen
Agreed, this thread proposed an alternative that actually threw out
privacy in order to avoid collisions and match today's JS patterns.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
