On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:51, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Class syntax is like a lint brush for such features. If we add it, it will > accrete more semantics (with unambiguous syntax, I hope) over time. This is > just inevitable, in my view. It makes me want to resist classes and look at > smaller and more direct fixes for the two known prototypal hazards.
Yes, please! I assume "two known hazards" is referring to your previous email: "subclassed prototype/constructor set-up and super calls." I've been using this pattern in my OOP javascript programs lately: https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/blob/master/inherits.js It works really well, behaves as expected (easy for the author to say, ha, but it doesn't violate instanceof, doesn't call ctors more than once, doesn't clobber already-added prototype properties, etc.) And it's about 10 lines, easy to read and grok. What would make it even nicer, however, with minimal added syntax: 1. Call "super(a, b, c)" instead of "Child.super.call(this, a, b, c)" 2. Maybe Parent.extend(Child) or Child.inherit(Parent) instead of inherits(Child, Parent) 3. Right now, calling parent versions of overridden methods is a painful: "this.constructor.super.prototype.someMethod.call(this)". It'd be nice to use something like "super.someMethod()". _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
