Closed tjcrowder closed 5 years ago
A few days out of sync is not a problem, thanks for your help! And sorry to make you feel pressured.
@littledan - Not a bit. :-) I'm just really, really glad to be able to be helpful.
@littledan - In this overall effort: Should it be "Private Name" or "Private Name value"? It varies from spec to spec (sometimes being "PrivateName value" which I think is probably a typo) and even within a spec. Examples from class fields (but it applies to all four):
Each time a class declaration executes, distinct internal Private Names are created.
The abstract operation SetFunctionName requires a Function argument F, a String, Symbol, or Private Name argument name...
If fieldName is a Private Name,...
However, Private Names specifically do not have this connotation: because the reference from the Private Name value to the Value is in a Record
Return a new unique Private Name value whose [[Description]] value is description.
Assert: P is a Private Name value.
Shall I make it "Private Name" consistently?
I haven't done anything with "Private Name" / "Private Name value" in that PR yet.
Let's say "Private Name" alone (as opposed to "PrivateName object").
@littledan - The exception being
...%PrivateName% object...
where appropriate (such as in the table here), right?
If so, all done. (Amusingly, static methods was the only proposal not affected by this.)
Right.
Update the names to match clarifications in class fields (primarily re https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-fields/pull/186). Per discussion in that PR, flatten Private Name (now Private Record) with its [[Descriptor]] so it's just a Private Record with [[Description]], [[Type]], [[Brand]], ...
Will do PRs for this and https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-methods/issues/55 though sadly it may be a few days; will try to squeeze it in ASAP, don't like the three being out of sync. :-)