aimingoo

The new syntax note: ```javascript class MyClass { private x = 100; foo() { console.log(x); // 100 } } ``` for protected property: ```javascript class MyClass { protected x =...

@bakkot The new proposal have not that problem, reason for rejecting "private" is not sufficient!

@jhpratt In current context, you know any name for class context, so next case is excessive or meaningless: ``` class f() { private x; foo(x) { // no! you know...

@jhpratt Have a private scope in context of class definitions, methods is sub-level block in the class context. when parent has 'x', sub-level block choice either override and new-name. same...

@jhpratt Maybe, you need a newly name for exist private name: ```javascript class MyClass { private x = 100; ... private x as internal_own_x; foo(x) { console.log(x); console.log(internal_own_x); } }...

@jhpratt hahaha, i know you will 👎 give a good idea to me? if dup identifier in scope or context, we can do what?

It's price for choice of identifier or class's fields. for identifier, impact is absolute exist in context of the class's definitions, but concept simple, and easy, and short code, these...

@jhpratt no, I am discussing this issue seriously and formally. i accept any questions and things. so, try testcases? I implement parser and interpreter base prepack and babel-parser. For syntax,...

@ljharb Thanks. a big problem, key issue. good! 👍 Have some design principles of visibility of the solution: * not possible to access a private member of an object when...

@jhpratt @rdking Thanks, We are discussing a key issue, so please allow me to talk a little more.   Have problems at three side in for proposal `class-fields`: * for concept:...