| 06:24 | <bakkot> | Justin Ridgewell can I take over https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-declarations/ |
| 06:24 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Sure |
| 06:25 | <Justin Ridgewell> | @littledan was interested in the design space for adding privates to objects. He wanted to change the syntax for reusing the outer private in a class/object declaration |
| 06:26 | <bakkot> | yeah I want it to be [#x] |
| 06:27 | <bakkot> | I think that's pretty natural now that we have #x in foo |
| 06:29 | <Justin Ridgewell> | That's what I suggested. Dan was leaning towards (#x) = … |
| 06:38 | <bakkot> | ehhhhh |
| 06:38 | <bakkot> | If we'd done (#x) in foo I could see it |
| 06:38 | <bakkot> | but #x in foo already introduces the notion of #x in expression position so I think we should just roll with that |
| 06:39 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Dan's concern was to have a uniform syntax for both classes and objects. I don't remember exactly why [#x] wouldn't work. |
| 06:40 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Off the top of my head, I think it could work? |
| 06:47 | <bakkot> | yeah it should work fine |
| 06:49 | <bakkot> | there's this one horrible edge case where you can today already write (which is parsed as but that happens whenever you have any computed field, not just with this new form |
| 06:50 | <bakkot> | threw together some slides, not gonna ask for stage 2 at this meeting but I'll bring it up https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Cmk_vpi6yID9dJjZqqSfKMhvYmO2xXGRakAxcXvHq4s/edit?usp=sharing |
| 07:19 | <Justin Ridgewell> | Friend functions would be very useful for pipelines 😉 |
| 12:45 | <nicolo-ribaudo> | I find it a bit weird to use the computed property syntax on declaration but not on access |
| 16:36 | <bakkot> | I agree but /shrug |
| 16:36 | <bakkot> | better than outer #x IMO |
| 16:36 | <bakkot> | or with #x or whatever |