On Monday, 2011-05-23 at 18:14 , Isaac Schlueter wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:51, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> 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. > I personally prefer backbone style as IMO it has advantage of keeping complete setup in one declaration statement.
> 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 > 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
