Closed dead-claudia closed 7 years ago
I can understand how they seem so similar at a functional level (and they should remain consistent in some specific ways), however the truth is tha the two proposals are actually quite different in functionality and complexity.
Moreover, it's not too unreasonable for the 2 proposals to advance at slightly independent rates - one may have issues that the other doesn't suffer from, but that shouldn't block the other. For this reason we've kept the two separate, but worked closely on the design of both so that they aren't diverging in ways they shouldn't. It's a tricky balance, but I think it's important to keep them separate but closely cooperative.
Going to close this out, but as usual: Please continue discussion and we can re-open if necessary.
@jeffmo I see now. Thanks!
This has numerous similarities with the private fields proposal, up to and including syntax. Also, in the last two meetings, this and the private fields proposal were considered together. Shouldn't they be merged instead, since they're so interconnected?