More of an aside: I think it would help if we had a list of what people actually want from privacy.

I want:
1. Avoiding name clashes
2. Indicate that a property is not part of the public API of an object (along with support from an IDE and a reflective API)

Other people seem to want:
3. Completely protecting data from external access.

Currently, symbols take care of #1. They don’t really take care of #2, because we probably want some symbols to be part of the public API of an object.

Another possibility to support #2 (but not #1): a naming convention for properties.

#3 seems to be well covered by either closures or weak maps.


On Jul 25, 2013, at 22:31 , Erik Arvidsson <erik.arvidsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> https://gist.github.com/arv/0bbb184710016e00d56c
> 
> The main goal of this proposal is to let us postpone the discussion
> about private state until ES7, making sure that we solve the main use
> cases.
> 
> -- 
> erik
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> 

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130725/333c5c39/attachment-0001.html>

More of an aside: I think it would help if we had a list of what people actually want from privacy.

I want:

1) Avoiding name clashes

2) Indicate that a property is not part of the public API of an object (along with support from an IDE and a reflective API)

Other people seem to want:

3) Completely protecting data from external access.

Currently, symbols take care of #1. They don’t really take care of #2, because we probably want some symbols to be part of the public API of an object.

Another possibility to support #2 (but not #1): a naming convention for properties.

\#3 seems to be well covered by either closures or weak maps.