Ihor Chulinda

@syg and what do you think about syntax sugar on top of private-symbols described here: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/issues/134 ?

@syg and why do you prefer security over metaprogramming, excluding the fact that existing approach already in `stage 3`?

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/issues/106#issuecomment-421556491 this is latest answer to problem with current proposal and proxies, at short it means `you have to choose one of Proxy or #-private, not both at same time`....

@bathos just for curiosity, what other scenarios for `brand-checking` I missed?

I seen this quite a few time mentioned as problem of `Symbol.private` approach. @erights could you, please, clarify why do you insist that ability to install privates to another object...

> Maybe we do want to support the interactions, but we should understand why. We, already talked about reasons behind allowing such interactions dozens of time, bu I'll shortly summarize...

@caridy, @jridgewell all this thread is built on wrong assumption that Symbols should be treated as objects that has to be packed after crossing boundary. But they **don't** have to....

@caridy and @jridgewell sorry, I didn't spent enough time to understand the problem with membrane, and my initial comment is indeed wrong, thanks for more detailed explanation. But after some...

It should be designed for use with `non-md split reader`(#12), so it requires it to be implemented first.

@igmat (me): 1. agree with @hax about somewhat failed process for such controversial topic 2. `brand-checking` shouldn't be added implicitly to all private reads/writes, since it breaks metaprogramming with proxies...