tc39
what is the actual motivation for this proposal?
As I understand it, there is no downside to giving a class a name. There is nothing you can do with an unnamed class that you cannot do with a named class. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given that, what motivation does this proposal have other than not having to choose a name for your class? If I choose the name _class for my class, it is only one character off from what you propose and works today with no language changes.
For me, having to repeat the name increases both refactoring burden and also the risk of bugs (ie, the primary benefit of object destructuring to me is that you don't have to repeat the property name, even if it's really short).
I don't know, you could say that about any name used anywhere. If you change a binding, you must also change the references. Between tooling, error messages, and vigilance, renaming variables has proven to not be a huge source of bugs.
To be honest, I feel this proposal was more like a "patch" for a serious footgun of private class fields/methods, but as https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-access-expressions/issues/4#issuecomment-688039020 , such try was failed and removed for some reasons I have not yet fully understood.
