Ranando D Washington-King

@ljharb > Why would "readonly" only apply to public but "const" to private? I'd expect to be able to declare readonly private things. Part of the difference is in how...

@ljharb Let me see if I understand the question: you're asking if it would be ok to mark functions on the prototype as not writable? Sure, why not? It's actually...

Should there also be a `final` that sets configurable to false?

@hax > For example, private static fields in current proposal have the issue that subclass throw TypeError when calling static methods inherited from base class which access private static fields....

All function calls would be evaluated at the time of parsing of the `class` definition. So at that time, the decision would be made. If something is meant to have...

Honestly, I'd rather bind a rule to the declaration like "only primitives and frozen objects can be assigned to data properties in a class declaration". That would remove the foot-gun...

In this case, the goal isn't so much about making it impossible to trigger the foot-gun as it is about forcing the expectation that a certain practice is usually a...

I argue for it because it's in the same class as a variable declaration without keyword ending up on `global`, generally a bad idea but it has it's uses. Plus,...

@shannon Actually it was `obj#` with the same meaning as `obj->` or `obj::` in this proposal. I haven't given it much thought yet, but while this definitely solves the need...

I'm sure it's been brought up before, but what if we make `::` a general "closure access operator". This is something that doesn't exist in the language at the moment...