Why no literal privates?

[Lcfvs]

Sorry but I don't see a topic about that point and I post on this repository because the merged one is about classes.

Is there any reasons to not consider something like this?

const o = {
  #a: 123,
  get a () {
    return this.#a
  }
}

Imho, it can be considered like

const o = new class {
  #a: 123;
  get a () {
    return this.#a
  }
}

Is there a problem about it?

[bakkot]

Copying my answer from here:

In part just because of the history of the proposal: classes are the place where private fields were most obviously important (since you cannot easily substitute a closure for the same effect) and where the semantics were the most straightforward to reason about.

However, there's a followup proposal which would allow you to declare a private field in any scope and then use it in object literals: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-declarations

[Lcfvs]

Ok, thanks.