@Thomas

>Could this be achieved with decorators?

I want to get Syntax Sugar.
But I didn't have an idea using decorators, thank you!


@kdex

>About your nomenclature: Why name it `protected` rather than `private`?
Am I missing a key difference between the two here?

This is not `private` proposal, because `class B extends A` can call
`getName()` in `class Protected_A`, like below.

```js
class B extends A {

    constructor(name, lastName, age) {
        super(name, lastName);

        // protected this
        if(new.target === B)    _(this, Protected_B);

        // protected property
        _(this).age = age;
    }

    callGetAge() {
        return _(this).getAge();
    }

    // added
    getData() {
        return {
            name: _(this).getName(); // Protected_A
            age:  _(this).getAge();
        }
    }

}
```

I'm sorry that my JavaScript code in ES2015 is too vain complex to
understand.


@Andrea Giammarchi

>On a side note, that `Object.assign` operation doesn't do what you
think it does, there are better patterns (boilerplates, actually ...) to
copy own properties over within their descriptors, if different from
enumerable data descriptors.

I didn't know boilerplates, thank you!
But `Object.assign` enable to copy accessors by using
`Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` according to (MDN sample
code)[https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign].

Of course, this approach must be bad...

Note: In case, `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors` proposal (Stage 0) in
ES2016 isn't same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor`. I misunderstood it.

>P.S. the amount of wm.set(a, b).get(a) operations instead of wm.set(a,
b) returning b is too damn high ... I know, I know, old discussion is
old (and too late anyway)

Sorry, it's my corner-cutting. I didn't know the amount, thank you!

@Thomas

>Could this be achieved with decorators?

I want to get Syntax Sugar.

But I didn't have an idea using decorators, thank you!


@kdex

>About your nomenclature: Why name it `protected` rather than `private`? Am I missing a key difference between the two here?

This is not `private` proposal, because `class B extends A` can call
`getName()` in `class Protected_A`, like below.

```js
class B extends A {

    constructor(name, lastName, age) {
        super(name, lastName);

        // protected this
        if(new.target === B)    _(this, Protected_B);

        // protected property
        _(this).age = age;
    }

    callGetAge() {
        return _(this).getAge();
    }

    // added
    getData() {
        return {
            name: _(this).getName(); // Protected_A
            age:  _(this).getAge();
        }
    }

}
```

I'm sorry that my JavaScript code in ES2015 is too vain complex to
understand.


@Andrea Giammarchi

>On a side note, that `Object.assign` operation doesn't do what you think it does, there are better patterns (boilerplates, actually ...) to copy own properties over within their descriptors, if different from enumerable data descriptors.

I didn't know boilerplates, thank you!

But `Object.assign` enable to copy accessors by using
`Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` according to [MDN sample
code](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign).
Of course, this approach must be bad...

Note: In case, `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors` proposal (Stage 0) in
ES2016 isn't same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor`. I misunderstood it.

>P.S. the amount of wm.set(a, b).get(a) operations instead of wm.set(a, b) returning b is too damn high ... I know, I know, old discussion is old (and too late anyway)

Sorry, it's my corner-cutting. I didn't know the amount, thank you!

@Thomas

>Could this be achieved with decorators?

I want to get Syntax Sugar.
But I didn't have an idea using decorators, thank you!


@kdex

>About your nomenclature: Why name it `protected` rather than `private`? Am I missing a key difference between the two here?

This is not `private` proposal, because `class B extends A` can call
`getName()` in `class Protected_A`, like below.

```js
class B extends A {

    constructor(name, lastName, age) {
        super(name, lastName);

        // protected this
        if(new.target === B)    _(this, Protected_B);

        // protected property
        _(this).age = age;
    }

    callGetAge() {
        return _(this).getAge();
    }

    // added
    getData() {
        return {
            name: _(this).getName(); // Protected_A
            age:  _(this).getAge();
        }
    }

}
```

I'm sorry that my JavaScript code in ES2015 is too vain complex to
understand.


@Andrea Giammarchi

>On a side note, that `Object.assign` operation doesn't do what you think it does, there are better patterns (boilerplates, actually ...) to copy own properties over within their descriptors, if different from enumerable data descriptors.

I didn't know boilerplates, thank you!
But `Object.assign` enable to copy accessors by using
`Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` according to [MDN sample
code](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign).

Of course, this approach must be bad...

Note: In case, `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors` proposal (Stage 0) in
ES2016 isn't same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor`. I misunderstood it.

>P.S. the amount of wm.set(a, b).get(a) operations instead of wm.set(a, b) returning b is too damn high ... I know, I know, old discussion is old (and too late anyway)

Sorry, it's my corner-cutting. I didn't know the amount, thank you!

@Thomas

>Could this be achieved with decorators?

I want to get Syntax Sugar.
But I didn't have an idea using decorators, thank you!


@kdex

>About your nomenclature: Why name it `protected` rather than `private`?

Am I missing a key difference between the two here?

This is not `private` proposal, because `class B extends A` can call
`getName()` in `class Protected_A`, like below.

```js
class B extends A {

    constructor(name, lastName, age) {
        super(name, lastName);

        // protected this
        if(new.target === B)    _(this, Protected_B);

        // protected property
        _(this).age = age;
    }

    callGetAge() {
        return _(this).getAge();
    }

    // added
    getData() {
        return {
            name: _(this).getName(); // Protected_A
            age:  _(this).getAge();
        }
    }

}
```

I'm sorry that my JavaScript code in ES2015 is too vain complex to
understand.


@Andrea Giammarchi

>On a side note, that `Object.assign` operation doesn't do what you

think it does, there are better patterns (boilerplates, actually ...) to
copy own properties over within their descriptors, if different from
enumerable data descriptors.

I didn't know boilerplates, thank you!
But `Object.assign` enable to copy accessors by using
`Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` according to [MDN sample
code](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/assign).

Of course, this approach must be bad...

Note: In case, `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors` proposal (Stage 0) in
ES2016 isn't same as `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor`. I misunderstood it.

>P.S. the amount of wm.set(a, b).get(a) operations instead of wm.set(a,

b) returning b is too damn high ... I know, I know, old discussion is
old (and too late anyway)

Sorry, it's my corner-cutting. I didn't know the amount, thank you!