Ranando D Washington-King

@bakkot I understand your (TC39's) perspective, and believe it or not, I do respect it. However, I also believe that you have either ignored, overlooked, or failed to comprehend something...

It's not currently possible, nor do they have any intention at present to allow it. It's been discussed before, but every time, the advocates reply by suggesting that you should...

> Square bracket property access deliberately excludes private fields to prevent this leak. Huh? I don't understand that. If `this.x === this["x"]` then dot access is literally just a subset...

> For what it’s worth: that is an unnecessary amount of boilerplate code for a simple concept. It almost feels like the current implementation is either incomplete, or incorrect, since...

If you were talking about this particularly set of arguments: > **Why doesn't `this['#x']` access the private field named `#x`, given that `this.#x` does?** > > This would complicate property...

> To further my point, it is perfectly reasonable to have private properties that are readable by outside the class. It’s not always about hiding the data itself, but keeping...

@bakkot > Private fields offer very much the same kind of privacy as closures. Patently false. If you had said "a similar kind" instead of "the same kind", then I...

It's different. What you showed is a case of shared closure. Every instance is using the same closure. Very different scenario than each instance using its own closure. It's the...

That's my point. It's the wrong concept to use. The concept to use should be more similar to one closure per instance as if the constructor bound a closure to...

It is instance privacy, but given the current design of ES, there's a way of giving the class the ability to access the closure of all instance. It would be...