Cheers Brendan. I must say, I really like how the class sugar is coming together. It seems that more closely matching a familiar syntax might make things a little more approachable for existing OO programmers, but I certainly see the elegance in using "constructor" directly.
thanks, G. On Jun 7, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > I'm not sure -- I wasn't in on the earlier design sessions among the > champions. I know "new" was used, but if we are sugaring prototypal > inheritance, we need something to create "constructor" in the prototype > (which is where method definitions written directly in the class body bind > their names). > > Having some backstage magic wire up "constructor" is possible but then you > have two names for the constructor. That is a wart. > > The bigger issue is that doing this preempts use of "new" as a prototype > property name (allowed by ES5). > > So to keep things simple, express the prototypal machinery already in the > language directly and explicitly, and avoid preempting "new", we've settled > on "constructor". > > The bigger issues with classes to close down include private instance > variable syntax and semantics, and static method s&s. Some followup work is > already under way here. We need to get this solid by the July TC39 meeting. > > /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
