I wrote up some thoughts on the proposal to replace the current Stage 3 class proposals with a clean slate design: https://gist.github.com/wycats/b1c96c67074396a239abd60f55087adc …
Should be a major topic of this week's TC39 meeting. Very interested in feedback.
Lots of links if you need context 
-
-
I would object to `this.
@foo` also. I think enough languages use # for comments that it doesn't read naturally. I imagine a language that used // as an operator would have the same trouble. But `this.#something` is the worst part for me -
Can you imagine getting used to it as analogous to leading `_`?
-
-
With the shorthand as the default usage, I think it’d be way more palatable. Without dynamic/variable access or access from the exterior, I’m having trouble imagining when the ivar_get equivalent would be needed
-
Ohh interesting. I hadn’t understood that privacy functioned like that. Was imagining “instance private” not “same constructor/class private” Can instances assign to each other’s privates? Is it a parser nightmare/impossibility to do other#x without the dot?
-
https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/blob/master/PRIVATE_SYNTAX_FAQ.md#why-not-have-access-be-thisx-without-the-dot … The way to think about it is that private is about lexical scope. So yes, instances can assign to each other's privates.
-
that link answers many of my questions, thanks!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.