I also like it but I am slightly sympathetic with Oliver's argument. I
don't think this is where the issues are at the moment.
I think the main issue at the moment is to get to an agrement whether
a minimal class proposal is acceptable for ES.next.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 13:07, Bob Nystrom <rnyst...@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote:
>>
>> I wholeheartedly agree with not obsessing about the token count. I’m very
>> sensitive to context in this regard: in some contexts, I don’t mind or even
>> welcome additional tokens, in other contexts I hate them.
>>
>> However, avoiding repeating the same identifier several times seems worth
>> it to me (this kind of redundancy goes beyond dropping a token or using
>> shorter tokens).
>
> +1 to this. I don't think a shorthand for this is the most important part of
> a class syntax, but it seems like a relatively easy win for a part of the
> language that currently feels unnecessarily redundant.
> - bob
>
>>
>> Java:
>> class Point {
>> public int x;
>> public int y;
>> public Point(int x, int y) {
>> this.x = x;
>> this.y = y;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> JavaScript:
>> class Point {
>> constructor(this.x, this.y) {
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Java is even more fun if you have getters and setters for x and y.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
>>
>> a...@rauschma.de
>> twitter.com/rauschma
>>
>> home: rauschma.de
>> blog: 2ality.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
--
erik
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
