You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The "Show Private" checkbox currently seems to toggle methods with _, which generally should be considered protected per internal polymer conventions. Using the new criteria discussed in https://github.com/Polymer/polymer-analyzer/issues/586 (which gives priority to @private/@protected/@public annotations and falls back to inference based on _'s), the toggle should toggle showing protected members (and never show private members).
Additionally, we should consider whether the default should be to show or hide protected members, since e.g. mixins, behaviors, and base classes like Polymer.Element largely consist of protected members for use by subclassers. Perhaps the default for elements could be "Show Protected: unchecked" and for everything else "Show Protected: checked". Seems like it would be nice to sort the members by public/protected as well, but that's maybe more arguable.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
The "Show Private" checkbox currently seems to toggle methods with
_
, which generally should be consideredprotected
per internal polymer conventions. Using the new criteria discussed in https://github.com/Polymer/polymer-analyzer/issues/586 (which gives priority to@private
/@protected
/@public
annotations and falls back to inference based on_
's), the toggle should toggle showingprotected
members (and never showprivate
members).Additionally, we should consider whether the default should be to show or hide protected members, since e.g. mixins, behaviors, and base classes like
Polymer.Element
largely consist of protected members for use by subclassers. Perhaps the default for elements could be "Show Protected: unchecked" and for everything else "Show Protected: checked". Seems like it would be nice to sort the members by public/protected as well, but that's maybe more arguable.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: