Great work Sathya. I'm happy to see this shipping. I'll make sure we discuss the open spec issue at the next TC39 meeting. My understanding is that becoming spec-compliant would not be a very large change. I think it's fine to split out public and private fields like this--this split corresponds to the original factoring of the specs, anyway, and Blink frequently ships well-documented fractions of specifications. I'm looking forward to seeing an I2S for private fields soon.
Thanks, Dan On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 3:16 PM Adam Klein <ad...@chromium.org> wrote: > LGTM. I'm super-excited about this shipping! > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM Sathya Gunasekaran <gsat...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> Contact Emails: >> gsat...@chromium.org >> >> Spec: >> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields >> https://tc39.github.io/proposal-static-class-features/ >> >> The linked proposal includes private fields, but this intent to ship >> is only for public instance and static fields, not private fields. >> >> Summary: >> Public class fields build upon the class syntax introduced in ES2015 >> by allowing declaration of both instance and static public fields. >> >> The following ES2015 syntax: >> >> class IncreasingCounter { >> constructor() { >> this._count = 0; >> } >> get value() { >> return this._count; >> } >> increment() { >> this._count++; >> } >> } >> >> can now be rewritten as: >> >> class IncreasingCounter { >> _count = 0; >> >> get value() { >> return this._count; >> } >> increment() { >> this._count++; >> } >> } >> >> Interoperability and compatibility risk: >> This syntax was previously a Syntax error, therefore there is very low >> web compat risk. >> >> There's one very minor spec non compliance in the current >> implementation around the class name during static field >> initialization (https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/issues/85) >> which needs to be discussed at the next TC39 meeting. >> >> Firefox: In development ( >> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1499448) >> Safari: In development (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174212) >> Edge: No signal >> >> Is this feature fully tested? >> V8 tests (mjsunit, cctest/test-parsing) as well as all test262 tests >> pass for this feature. >> >> Chromestatus entry: >> https://www.chromestatus.com/feature/6001727933251584 >> >> Requesting approval to ship? >> Yes. Note that since this is a V8/JS feature, this post is just an FYI >> to blink-dev — no signoff from Blink API owners is required. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "blink-dev" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAMd%2BM7w_4-eJufKNB3gBzj2EsZUng0VD%3DmzbPmBr7q_-zn-yFw%40mail.gmail.com >> . >> >> -- > -- > v8-users mailing list > v8-us...@googlegroups.com > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "v8-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to v8-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- v8-dev mailing list v8-dev@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
