If they were going to use a new syntax for private members, why not a minus sign: class { -privatefield }? At least there's some precedent for that, and it's al

If they were going to use a new syntax for private members, why not a minus sign: class { -privatefield }? At least there's some precedent for that, and it's already a token in the grammar which currently has no meaning inside a class declaration. Also: another poster added that private members should just be closed over in functions. Well, I don't find it productive to condemn classes as as a concept, but if JS already has classes being syntactic sugar for a type of methods, it makes sense that private members would be sugar for closed-over variables also.