Okay, now that I look at that proposal, I see two issues right off: 1. It's *super incredibly boilerplatey* and verbose syntactically. I don't know very many people who'd be willing to downgrade very far from even what TypeScript has. (I'm specifically referring to the declarations here.) 2. `protected` on an object literal is next to useless. I've used that kind of feature almost never.
I also find it odd you're supporting private dynamic properties. It does make polyfilling next to impossible, though. Just my 2 cents on it. (I glanced over this while very tired, so I probably missed several highlights. These are what stuck out to me.) ----- Isiah Meadows cont...@isiahmeadows.com www.isiahmeadows.com On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:54 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://github.com/rdking/proposal-object-members/blob/master/README.md > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:01 AM Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Do you have a link to this proposal so I can take a look at it? It'd >> be much easier to critique it if I could see the proposal text. >> ----- >> >> Isiah Meadows >> cont...@isiahmeadows.com >> www.isiahmeadows.com >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> If you go back a few months, what you're proposing is *very* similar, >> >> at >> >> least functionally, to my previous iteration of my proposal: >> > >> > That functional similarity is intentional. After pouring over years >> > worth of >> > posts, I figured out what the vast majority of the proposal-class-fields >> > detractors actually wanted: an elegant, easily recognized syntax for >> > adding >> > private members to objects. >> > >> >> My main problem was that trying to limit private properties to objects >> >> created within a scope got complicated in a hurry once you considered >> >> all >> >> the small details, and it just didn't seem simple anymore. >> > >> > I noticed that about your proposal too. I'm also pretty sure that Daniel >> > E. >> > and Kevin G. ran into the same issues back during the >> > proposal-private-names >> > days which is why the private names concept is just an implementation >> > detail >> > in their current proposal. My proposal is made less complicated by >> > breaking >> > the problem down into the 3 pieces required to make it all work: >> > 1. a record to store private data >> > 2. an array to hold references to the schema records of accessible >> > private >> > data >> > 3. a schema record for the sharable data. >> > >> > In this way private = encapsulated on a non-function, protected = >> > private + >> > shared, and static = encapsulated on a function. It should be easy to >> > sort >> > out how the data would be stored given such simple definitions. These >> > simple >> > definitions also mean that encapsulation is naturally confined to >> > definitions. Attempts to alter that state lead to strange logical >> > contradictions and potential leaks of encapsulated data. I have thought >> > of >> > the possibility that private data could be added after definition, but >> > every >> > attempt I make to consider such a thing has so far led to a risk of >> > leaking. >> > >> > I've been working on some code that can serve as a proof-of-concept in >> > ES6. >> > It will implement all of my proposal that can reasonably be implemented >> > in >> > ES6 using Proxy. It's already in the proposal repository under the POC >> > branch, but it's still a WIP. For now, it already supports inheriting >> > from >> > native objects. I'm working on subclassing right now. By the time I get >> > done >> > (likely this coming Monday), it should support every feature in my >> > proposal. >> > I'm basically using it as a means to check the viability of my proposal. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:35 PM Isiah Meadows <isiahmead...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> If you go back a few months, what you're proposing is *very* similar, >> >> at least functionally, to my previous iteration of my proposal: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://github.com/isiahmeadows/private-symbol-proposal/blob/c5c9781d9e76123c92d8fbc83681fdd3a9b0b319/README.md >> >> >> >> My main problem was that trying to limit private properties to objects >> >> created within a scope got complicated in a hurry once you considered >> >> all the small details, and it just didn't seem simple anymore. It only >> >> got more complicated when you started getting into the logistics of >> >> integrating with modules. >> >> >> >> So I've considered the issue and explored it pretty thoroughly - I >> >> *really* don't want private data to be limited to classes (which I >> >> dislike), but I did also previously have the concern of trying to >> >> limit who could define properties where. >> >> >> >> I will point out that you can prevent arbitrary private extension by >> >> simply doing `Object.preventExtensions(object)`. Because properties >> >> defined using private symbols are otherwise just normal properties, >> >> they still have to go through the same access checks normal properties >> >> have to, like [[IsExtensible]]. The only other concrete difference is >> >> that proxy hooks don't fire when you do things with private symbols. >> >> >> >> ----- >> >> >> >> Isiah Meadows >> >> cont...@isiahmeadows.com >> >> www.isiahmeadows.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> What use case are you referring to here? >> >> > >> >> > In the case of SymbolTree, the objects in use are external. >> >> > >> >> >> I think there’s been a misunderstanding. Everybody agrees that >> >> >> that’s a >> >> >> bad pattern. It’s not what the point of private symbols would be. >> >> >> It’s >> >> >> not a >> >> >> target use case. >> >> > >> >> > That certainly puts my mind at ease. >> >> > >> >> >> As Isiah said, “all of the examples here I've presented are for >> >> >> scenarios >> >> >> where the state is related to the factory that created the objects.” >> >> > >> >> > If the factory that creates the objects is the also the only thing >> >> > trying to >> >> > store private information on those objects, then I understand you're >> >> > only >> >> > looking for per-instance module-private data, possibly with the >> >> > ability >> >> > to >> >> > use common private names. If that's the case, then it really is just >> >> > 2 >> >> > simple extensions of my proposal: >> >> > * allow a Symbol when used as a private or protected property name to >> >> > persist as the private Symbol name for the private instance field on >> >> > each >> >> > object for which it is used. >> >> > * create an additional privilege level (internal) that places the new >> >> > field's name in the [[DeclarationInfo]] of the function containing >> >> > the >> >> > declaration. >> >> > >> >> > The effect of using these 2 features together is that anything within >> >> > the >> >> > same function as the declared Symbol will gain access to the internal >> >> > field >> >> > of all objects using that Symbol as a field name. >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:36 PM Darien Valentine >> >> > <valentin...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'd say you've identified the common pattern, but that pattern >> >> >> > itself >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > a bad use case, and the use of private symbols as you have defined >> >> >> > them >> >> >> > doesn't do anything to correct the technical issue. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think there’s been a misunderstanding. Everybody agrees that >> >> >> that’s a >> >> >> bad pattern. It’s not what the point of private symbols would be. >> >> >> It’s >> >> >> not a >> >> >> target use case. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Since you cannot stick new properties onto a non-extensible >> >> >> > object, >> >> >> > even >> >> >> > private symbols won't solve the problem with your use case. >> >> >> >> >> >> That appending private symbols to external objects which are frozen >> >> >> wouldn’t work doesn’t matter precisely because it’s not a target use >> >> >> case. >> >> >> That it doesn’t work reliably might even be considered a positive, >> >> >> since it >> >> >> discourages something we all seem to agree is not good practice. >> >> >> >> >> >> It’s also not related to private symbols; this is already how >> >> >> properties >> >> >> work, regardless of what kind of key they have. >> >> >> >> >> >> > The difference here is that in your use cases, library A is >> >> >> > "sneakily" >> >> >> > storing information on object B. >> >> >> >> >> >> What use case are you referring to here? I can’t find any example in >> >> >> the >> >> >> previous posts that matches these descriptions. As Isiah said, “all >> >> >> of >> >> >> the >> >> >> examples here I've presented are for scenarios where the state is >> >> >> related to >> >> >> the factory that created the objects.” The same is true of my >> >> >> examples. >> >> >> Everybody’s on the same page regarding not wanting to add properties >> >> >> to >> >> >> objects their own libraries do not create. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
