Joe Pea comments

Results 1897 comments of


                                            Joe Pea

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

Then we can have dynamism and be closer to JavaScript origins: ```js const privateProps = ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'] class Foo { constructor() { let i = 0 for (const privProp...

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

I suppose by "mental model" you are referring to the very proposal of this github repo, which many people don't like. You know, you (tc39 in general) can change the...

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

Honestly speaking, in `this.#foo`, the name does not intuitively seem to be `#foo`. Valid JavaScript identifiers have _never_ had `#` symbols. I wouldn't suddenly think `#foo` to be valid. Try...

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

That seems to be wrong. According to @DanielRosenwasser in https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/issues/248#issuecomment-502970350, > My feeling from speaking with a decent number of members of the committee is that many people are saying...

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

If we could roll back a **_much more useful feature such as Object.observe_**, we can certainly roll back private fields (and change public and static ones to [[Set]]).

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

Remember, private fields was unfairly rushed from stage 2 to stage 3 in just two months. It shows a lack of respect towards end users (with regards to this feature)...

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

Of course, a person burglarizing a home doesn't think what they do is unfair. I'm the end user (the person whose home is burglarized).

Treating the `#` as part of a `.#` operator instead of as part of a field name `#foo`.

> This is the first design that has managed to gain real traction In what sense? Traction with limited committee members? Traction with the community? How do you explain traction...

Please Don't Do That.

The fact that a library author can add private fields to a class used as implementation detail and unknowingly break all consumers is quite a big downfall of the current...

Why are #private fields not source-positional?

Hello @bakkot! Thanks for answering, but you only explained what is happening. I know, that the private fields are scoped to each class instance. I'm just wondering why wasn't it...