From fd7e0cbef7a2fae80aeb71da9431128152c7fdf4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Gerwitz <mikegerwitz@gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:28:38 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Support for implicit private members

Members with underscore prefixes are now implicitly private, which follows
common convention. See test case comments for rationale.
---
 lib/prop_parser.js             | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 test/PropParserKeywordsTest.js | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/prop_parser.js b/lib/prop_parser.js
index 6b9489f..a1e9a23 100644
--- a/lib/prop_parser.js
+++ b/lib/prop_parser.js
@@ -24,16 +24,26 @@
  * @type {Object.<string,boolean>}
  */
 var _keywords = {
-    'public':    true,
-    'protected': true,
-    'private':   true,
-    'static':    true,
-    'abstract':  true,
-    'const':     true,
-    'virtual':   true,
-    'override':  true,
-    'proxy':     true,
-    'weak':      true,
+    'public':    1,
+    'protected': 1<<1,
+    'private':   1<<2,
+    'static':    1<<3,
+    'abstract':  1<<4,
+    'const':     1<<5,
+    'virtual':   1<<6,
+    'override':  1<<7,
+    'proxy':     1<<8,
+    'weak':      1<<9,
+};
+
+/**
+ * Keyword masks for conveniently checking the keyword bitfield
+ * @type {Object.<string,integer>}
+ */
+var _kmasks = {
+    amods: _keywords[ 'public' ]
+        | _keywords[ 'protected' ]
+        | _keywords[ 'private' ],
 };
 
 
@@ -48,6 +58,7 @@ exports.parseKeywords = function ( prop )
 {
     var name        = prop,
         keywords    = [],
+        bitwords    = 0x00,
         keyword_obj = {};
 
     prop = ''+( prop );
@@ -58,27 +69,41 @@ exports.parseKeywords = function ( prop )
     {
         name = keywords.pop();
 
-        var i       = keywords.length,
-            keyword = '';
-
+        var i = keywords.length;
         while ( i-- )
         {
-            keyword = keywords[ i ];
+            var keyword = keywords[ i ],
+                kval    = _keywords[ keyword ];
 
             // ensure the keyword is recognized
-            if ( !_keywords[ keyword ] )
+            if ( !kval )
             {
                 throw Error(
                     "Unexpected keyword for '" + name + "': " + keyword
                 );
             }
 
+            // ease-of-access
             keyword_obj[ keyword ] = true;
+
+            // permits quick and concise checks
+            bitwords |= kval;
         }
     }
 
+    // members with an underscore prefix are implicitly private, unless an
+    // access modifier is explicitly provided; double-underscore is ingored,
+    // as they denote special members that do not become part of the
+    // prototype and are reserved by ease.js
+    if ( ( name.match( /^_[^_]/ ) && !( bitwords & _kmasks.amods ) ) )
+    {
+        keyword_obj[ 'private' ] = true;
+        bitwords |= _keywords[ 'private' ];
+    }
+
     return {
         name:     name,
         keywords: keyword_obj,
+        bitwords: bitwords,
     };
 }
diff --git a/test/PropParserKeywordsTest.js b/test/PropParserKeywordsTest.js
index 592e41f..913dab6 100644
--- a/test/PropParserKeywordsTest.js
+++ b/test/PropParserKeywordsTest.js
@@ -141,4 +141,66 @@ require( 'common' ).testCase(
 
         this.assertFail( "Should not permit unknown keywords" );
     },
+
+
+    /**
+     * It's accepted convention in nearly every modern object-oriented
+     * language that underscore-prefixed members denote private. (Granted,
+     * the Java community sometimes uses underscore suffixes, but that's
+     * considerably less common in the JavaScript community.)
+     *
+     * For the sake of conciseness, this allows omission of the `private'
+     * keyword; this, coupled with the fact that all non-underscore-prefixed
+     * members are public by default, satisfies the two most common
+     * visibility modifiers for classes and allows a definition style more
+     * natural to JavaScript developers from prototypal development.
+     */
+    'Implciity marks underscore-prefixed members as private': function()
+    {
+        this.assertDeepEqual(
+            this.Sut.parseKeywords( '_foo' ).keywords,
+            { 'private': true }
+        );
+    },
+
+
+    /**
+     * All that said, we want users to be able to do what they want. Let's
+     * have explicit access modifier declarations override the implicit
+     * behavior rather than providing confusing errors (because multiple
+     * access modifiers were provided).
+     */
+    'Fields are not implicitly private with explicit access modifier':
+    function()
+    {
+        this.assertDeepEqual(
+            this.Sut.parseKeywords( 'public _foo' ).keywords,
+            { 'public': true }
+        );
+
+        this.assertDeepEqual(
+            this.Sut.parseKeywords( 'protected _foo' ).keywords,
+            { 'protected': true }
+        );
+
+        this.assertDeepEqual(
+            this.Sut.parseKeywords( 'private _foo' ).keywords,
+            { 'private': true }
+        );
+    },
+
+
+    /**
+     * Double-underscore members are reserved by ease.js for special purposes
+     * and are not included as part of the prototype chain. Further, if we
+     * did not have this exception, then __construct would be marked as
+     * private, which would be in error.
+     */
+    'Double-underscore members are not implicitly private': function()
+    {
+        this.assertDeepEqual(
+            this.Sut.parseKeywords( '__foo' ).keywords,
+            {}
+        );
+    },
 } );