> I dont think having both new <Object> and new <Function> in the language will > cause any conflicts. It's the same as claiming that having both declarative > class and new <Function> would cause "confusion".
I wouldn’t mind either, but there *will* be two ways of doing things then (and that’s only a positive in the Perl world ;-). > class literals look the same but literal declaration are a right pain for any > kind of meta programming. I can't take an existing object and turn it into a > "class" without using eval. Can you elaborate? It don’t think, it is that bad: Currently, you have a clear separation of concerns between the prototype and the constructor. However, these things are cumbersome: 1. Assembling a class 2. Subclassing 3. Constructor chaining, super method calls 4. Instanceof works with a name of an entity that only existed at instantiation time and is only weakly connected to an instance after that. Sect. 3 in [1] goes into more detail on how prototypes-as-classes would automatically make these things simpler. But in ECMAScript.next, class literals and super references fix 1-3 (and #4 is not that hard to live with). Superficially, things will be easy to handle. Under the hood, it’s a little more complicated, but it should help to concentrate on what role the constructor function plays and what role the prototype. [1] http://www.2ality.com/2011/06/prototypes-as-classes.html -- 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
