On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:13 PM, David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 17/01/2013 19:30, Mark S. Miller a écrit : >> >> 2) Until ES7 provides private > > I may have missed something. In the harmony proposal on the wiki [1] (is the > wiki down? I'm looking at google's cache),
I don't know, but seems down for me too. But the classes accepted for ES6 are "maximally minimal" and contain no field declarations of any kind. > I see that syntax for private > properties is in the proposal and nothing suggests it's postpone until ES7. > I see in recent notes that the @-syntax isn't fully agreed upon, but that's > where I'm at. Is there no private syntax at all for classes in ES6? Correct. > > >> there will be transpilers that provide actual privacy by other means. > > What syntax and semantics will these transpilers use if TC39 doesn't reach > an agreement? > > >> 3) Most important, and most unsaid by my previous email: In ES6, since >> there's no built-in class/object privacy mechanism, ES6 programmers in >> general and ES6 class programmers specifically have to achieve real >> privacy by other means -- by engaging in some pattern using other >> constructs. Previous conversations assumed that these patterns would >> be expressed in terms of private symbols. Absent private symbols, the >> pattern shown by my expansion above, as painful as it is, is what will >> be expressed manually. By the time ES7 rolls out, there will be a lot >> of that code. > > People who care will use a transpiler (and I personally don't care if the > generated code is slightly slower than what it could be natively or ugly). > People who don't care about privacy will go on with their lives writing > JavaScript as they do in ES5. > That's an ephemeral problem in my opinion and isn't the "most important" > point. Am I underestimating it? I believe you are. For abstractions with small numbers of methods and no interesting inheritance, I find the objects-as-closures pattern + weakmaps for class-private instance variables, as in our recent paper, to be more pleasant than the likely ES7 class syntax anyway; and much simpler to understand. And it's way more pleasant than the maximin classes accepted for ES6. We will see a lot of code manually using WeakMaps in this way. > > David > > [1] http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
