[ravicious]

Sure thing, but could you show an example? Let's say we want the `rename` function be private, this is what I came up with: https://gist.github.com/ravicious/5412eebf8a1934ec7886

I don't particularly like this solution, because now I can't just write `this.rename()` in other Person functions. That's why I'd rather have a baked-in way to define private properties & functions instead of having to use (in my opinion) this weird syntax and later explain the whys and hows to other developers.

[braythwayt]

Writing this[rename](...) instead of this.rename(...) is hardly onerous.

Your solution mostly works, but a simpler one takes advantage of combining computed property keys and compact method syntax:

https://gist.github.com/raganwald/18f8c179101cfd93c291

[ravicious]

Okay, now this certainly feels better than my example and is much more bulletproof than prefixing function names with `_`, thanks.

[mikegerwitz]

You wouldn't be able to simply; the same issues exist as in ES3 in this regard.

(I wrote about them extensively years back here: http://mikegerwitz.com/papers/coope/coope.pdf.)