Simplify PrivateName and ClassPrivateProperty types

[ghost]

Q	A
Bug fix?	no
Breaking change?	no
New feature?	no
Deprecations?	no
Spec compliancy?	no
Tests added/pass?	Tests pass
Fixed tickets	#260 (comment)
License	MIT

Simplified the type declarations for PrivateName and ClassPrivateProperty.

• No need to mark PrivateName as PatternBase; it's not a pattern if it can't be used as a parameter.
• No need to define __clone() on it since that's never used.
• TypeScript doesn't support class private properties, and I'm pretty sure flow doesn't either, so no need to add ts/flow specific node declarations to ClassPrivateProperty just yet.

Just a thought: You might also consider using ClassProperty with a PrivateName key instead of creating a new node kind for that.

CC @diervo as #260 was just merged today.

[ghost]

Actually, ClassPrivateProperty probably doesn't need ClassMemberBase either unless it can be static or have decorators.

[hzoo]

Yeah Diego wanted it merged + transform before the TC39 meeting this week (Tuesday 😅 ) haha. Yeah maybe we should just remove any unnecessary types then given it's not supported anyway.

[hzoo]

looks fine

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@01da622). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #532   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   98.18%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       22           
  Lines             ?     3572           
  Branches          ?      992           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     3507           
  Misses            ?       24           
  Partials          ?       41

Flag	Coverage Δ
#babel	80.34% <ø> (?)
#babylon	96.94% <ø> (?)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 01da622...2b90e6a. Read the comment docs.

[hzoo]

Although there is https://github.com/erights/Orthogonal-Classes but we can also just that stuff when we get to it (static, etc)

context: seems like they wanted to merge private, public class properties + ^ proposal

[diervo]

Orthogonal classes have a lot of open questions and is not likely to be advancing any time soon.
Now regarding public and private fields, let's not worry about naming or final semantics until both proposals move forward.