HE Shi-Jun

@acutmore `Symbol.of(object)` would behave like `Symbol.for`, always return same symbol value even cross-realm. But `Symbol.prototype.object` may throw cross-realm. If it's an iframeRealm and u already have the right to access...

> how does this solve one of the objection @mhofman This alternative actually do not introduce symbol as weakmap key, so there will be no observable difference. 😂 But as...

> There is no consensus on that security isolation being a viable constraint. @ljharb But such security isolation constraints are the consequence of the design of shadow realms, aren't they?...

Note, as the recent change from bind-this to call-this, the semantic of this proposal is now the subset of extensions proposal, and the syntax of this proposal also could be...

@bergus As extensions proposal, it also have `rec::method()` syntax so the pair of `rec::method()` and `rec::[method]()` is actually mapping the `rec.method()` and `rec[method]()` syntax.

@bergus Yes. `v::ns:[expr]` is also possible, or required if we have strong symbol use cases (see https://github.com/tc39/proposal-extensions/issues/11). Syntax `rec::method / rec::[method]` choose `[]` is just for matching `v.method / v[method]`....

@js-choi I think the problem may be "bound" is unrelated semantic (of method), and I'm not sure the pushback is because such analogy, my impression is some delegates don't like...

@rdking > After re-thinking private functions, the static picture looks a little different to me now. How about this? > > ```js > class Ex { > /* I don't...

@ljharb > Nothing is better handled by a getter imo - a nonwritable public data property is already a thing in the language, and is quite useful for exposing constants...

@ljharb > Would I then be able to do `readonly foo() {}`, `static readonly bar() {}`? Unfortunately, `readonly foo() {}` will be confusing to average programmers. I believe most programmers...