Mark S. Miller
Mark S. Miller
What conflict?
E also influenced JavaScript
It turns out I was wrong about the utility of "private constructors" expressed by any of these means anyway. It does not protect against the hazard under naive subclassing. (attn...
That code has access to `Foo`. That is not the problem. The problem is that ***instances*** of `Bar` grant access to `Foo`. If the author of `Bar` intends this, no...
@littledan Yes, I think that is reasonable. I like the future proofing point. It means we can take this suggestion by "simply" adding these other `constructor` cases to our exclusion...
Agreed on the immediate point. On the other point, I find it attractive in the abstract to have class-scoped declarations. But I am at a loss for a good syntax....
Awesome! Yes, we should push for this. But separately from this proposal, as you way. Your example's indentation is weird.
> Is that ok with you? It is not great, but it is ok with me because that is what we already get for abstractions like ArrayIterator that are represented...
It would still be the `Object` constructor
I agree with all but the last wrinkle. We should support ```javascript @foo own x=5, #y; ``` as you say. But we should not support ```javascript @foo own @readonly x=5,...