search

tc39 / proposal-static-class-features

The static parts of new class features, in a separate proposal
https://arai-a.github.io/ecma262-compare/?pr=1668
127 stars 27 forks source link

Update the names to match clarifications in class fields #49

Closed tjcrowder closed 5 years ago

tjcrowder commented 5 years ago

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. :-)

littledan commented 5 years ago

A few days out of sync is not a problem, thanks for your help! And sorry to make you feel pressured.

tjcrowder commented 5 years ago

@littledan - Not a bit. :-) I'm just really, really glad to be able to be helpful.

tjcrowder commented 5 years ago

@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?

tjcrowder commented 5 years ago

I haven't done anything with "Private Name" / "Private Name value" in that PR yet.

littledan commented 5 years ago

Let's say "Private Name" alone (as opposed to "PrivateName object").

tjcrowder commented 5 years ago

@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.)

littledan commented 5 years ago

Right.