Domenic Denicola wrote:
If we’re making up new syntax, I think this would be much nicer if
“private.x” were spelled “this.@x” and “private(x)” were spelled “x.@”
+1 and this is not a minor point.
Also, I don’t see why constructors need to use the “private.x” syntax
whereas other methods get to use the free variable?
+2 -- Same here, only moreso!
This thread goes over ground well-trod in 2011:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-July/015787.html
and others -- search for "private data record" 2011 es-discuss
site:mail.mozilla.org.
With these in mind I give the following fork:
https://gist.github.com/4562796
Kevin, could you do an alterna-gist as Domenic proposes? Of course
there's much more at stake than syntax, but it would help.
/be
*From:*es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org
[mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Smith
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 21:40
*To:* Mark S. Miller
*Cc:* Brendan Eich; es-discuss
*Subject:* Re: Security Demands Simplicity (was: Private Slots)
It seems as if this approach to private class members also allows us
to describe private methods in a convenient way. Private methods can
be attached to the _prototype_ of the private field object, thus
avoiding per-instance allocation. Of course, the correct "this" value
has to be used in the expansion when calling the private method, but
this approach appears to be compatible with mixins (whereas private
symbols are not).
https://gist.github.com/4561871
Thoughts?
{ Kevin }
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
