On Jun 28, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >>> What do you do with constructors-as-classes to check the following? >>> o instanceof C >>> You look for C.prototype in the prototype chain of o. >> >> No, the JS engine does that! >> >> I, or random classy-dynamic-language-experienced users, just do "o >> instanceof C", i.e., they ask "is o an instance of [constructed by] C"? >> >> Not everyone mentally deconstructs operators into their more primitive >> semantics. > > But with PaCs you don’t have to deconstruct, there is no detour from the > class to another construct.
I just wrote that with classes or today's constructor functions, no one has to deconstruct, either. On the other hand, having PaCs and classes/constructors is more complex than just having one. And we do not get the choice of just having PaCs. >> Especially if there's no prototype-chain hacking, just shallow classical >> inheritance via a solid library. > > > Then we would have a Python-like abstraction on top of current facilities. > Which I don’t mind at all. But I’m worried about the abstraction leaking. What leak? We want sugar for today's patterns. I think you keep assuming everyone thinks about prototypes not constructors, but that is not universally true -- far from it. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
