Kevin Gibbons

@hax: > `var x`: I think this syntax is very easy to understand, the old `var` is for function local variables, and this is for class "local" variables. It's not...

@allenwb, > You aren't arguing that this proposal adds more complexity then then union of all the class extensions proposal that are already in the TC39 pipeline, are you? I...

> The fields proposal is not sufficient in its current form to completely address that use case. It is missing the capability to (a) securely decompose methods and (b) expose...

@hax > Sorry I don't get this. Could you give a small example show the breaking contract? Sure, let me elaborate. JavaScript functions are [lexically scoped](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_(computer_science)#Lexical_scope_vs._dynamic_scope): the variable to which...

@zenparsing / @littledan > I claim that the delete trick for exposing private access is not sufficient, in the sense that it is not usable enough on its own to...

@hax > is just sugar of But it is _not_ just sugar of that. There's only one function object created by the class definition. And it's especially confused given static...

@allenwb, thanks for the list. > Your variable binding argumenbts seem predicated upon the keyword var. Do they still hold if we replace var with any other word such as...

@allenwb, Earlier you asked: > You aren't arguing that this proposal adds more complexity then then union of all the class extensions proposal that are already in the TC39 pipeline,...

Re: waiting for async-do: I am no longer confident I'll get async-do to stage 3 within the next ~6 months. I'm still holding out hope for within a year, though....

`Reflect.ownKeys(Blob)`: - Chrome: ["length", "name", "arguments", "caller", "prototype"] - Firefox: [ "length", "name", "prototype", Symbol("Symbol.hasInstance") ] - Safari: ["prototype", "name", "length"] So, Chrome has additional `arguments` and `caller` properties, which...