On Jun 26, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>>
>>> But I still wonder if we wouldn't be better off restricting where super can
>>> occur. I can't prove it, but we are following in the universal-'this'
>>> footsteps (but with static or else Object.defineMethod binding). That
>>> sounds a warning bell in my head.
>>
>> While I highly support improving ECMAScript's declarative mechanisms for
>> defining object abstractions I'd be pretty concerned if we had object
>> abstraction forms that can only be created declaratively. The ability to
>> use reflection to construct such abstractions has already proven its worth
>> both in JS and in other languages. Having forms of methods that can't be
>> created via reflection seems a step backwards.
>
> I agree, but I'm not talking about such a declarative-only, no-imperative
> restriction as such. Rather, an essentially grammatical restriction on where
> 'super' can be used. But I'm not selling it, just discussing it, so don't
> worry.
>
I particular don't want to discover that we have forced programmer into doing
things like:
let obj = eval(sup<|{
method1 () {super.method1()}
};
...
to imperatively construct an object that has methods that reference super.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
