JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#1

Post by just_astounded » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields
github.com

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#2

Post by blargathon » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 5:46 PM UTC

Kinda disappointing. I don't really like the # for privates. It's not an elegant solution. It feels a bit like a one-off hack honestly.

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#3

Post by dyeje » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:24 PM UTC

Can someone provide some context? This link just drops you into the middle of the argument.

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#4

Post by pitaj » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:26 PM UTC

blargathon wrote: post #2

Kinda disappointing. I don't really like the # for privates. It's not an elegant solution. It feels a bit like a one-off hack honestly.

There's not really a better way while maintaining encapsulation.

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#5

Post by jwalton » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

blargathon wrote: post #2

Kinda disappointing. I don't really like the # for privates. It's not an elegant solution. It feels a bit like a one-off hack honestly.

Right now I'm prefixing variables I don't want external actors to change with underscores, which doesn't actually do anything, so is arguably more of a hack. :P

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#6

Post by skue » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

Background for this proposal and discussion can be found in this repo’s README and additional docs:

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-fields

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#7

Post by watty » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

Seems like a pretty fair and well though out solution after reading the latest response by bakkot.

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#8

Post by gue5t » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:31 PM UTC

Javascript is a poorly-designed, committee-managed, machine-oriented intermediate language. Why should hackers care?

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#9

Post by Andrex » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:35 PM UTC

watty wrote: post #7

Seems like a pretty fair and well though out solution after reading the latest response by bakkot.

Agreed. I've been following the spec for a few months and while # is "ugly," it serves the purpose of the concept well and works with the current spec/implementations without much headache. Seems like a win-win to me and I haven't seen a convincing argument for why private # properties shouldn't move forward as they are.

Re: JavaScript TC39 implementing hashmark private class fields

#10

Post by wavefunction » Thu, Aug 03, 2017, 6:36 PM UTC

dyeje wrote: post #3

Can someone provide some context? This link just drops you into the middle of the argument.

Some in the JavaScript community have been asking for private members as a language feature and some folks do not want this as there is a subset of JavaScript programmers who worry about many concepts from OOP "polluting" the relative minimalism of JavaScript. A fear I share to a certain extent.

From reading the thread it sounds like some feel that the addition of private members is being accomplished by fiat rather than community consensus.