There's no mistake that dedicated syntax for traits would help users and implementors alike. However, while I (or others) could definitely come up with a 'traits-as-sugar', or even a 'traits-as-a-new-value' proposal, that still wouldn't solve the version evolution problem associated with trait composition (or any other traditional inheritance mechanism). As long as this remains a deal-breaker, I don't think it's worth looking into alternative traits proposals.
As Dave said, traits.js is out there for people to experiment with. Any feedback on usability issues of the design in its current form are highly appreciated. 2010/9/9 David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> > > Agreed; perhaps my question was not clear. If there was a Traits-like > > proposal that did include new syntax, would you be against it because > > you can implement something similar as a library without needing new > > semantics, or would you be more inclined to reserve judgement until > > you could actually review a proposal and see what the proposed > > benefits were? > > The latter (speaking for myself, of course). > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
