> Personally I'd ask whether there is a good reason to have "class" properties
> on the constructor.
I’m not too fond of them, either. Many current use cases go away with modules.
However, sometimes, you want to define class-specific constants such as
Point.ZERO.
> Also you could just re-order the assignment like so :
>
> const className = superClass <| function(/*constructor parameters */) {
> //constructor body
> super.constructor(/*arguments to super constructor */);
> this.{
> //per instance property definitions
> };
> }.{
> //class (ie, constructor) properties
> }.prototype.{
> //instance properties defined on prototype
> };
Won’t work: The value of className will be the prototype, not the function:
x.prototype.{ ... }
returns the value of x.prototype after the update.
It might be possible to introduce an operator that returns the value of x after
an update. For example (note the missing dot):
x.prototype{ ... }
Then the above becomes:
const className = superClass <| function(/*constructor parameters */) {
//constructor body
super.constructor(/*arguments to super constructor */);
this.{
//per instance property definitions
};
}.{
//class (ie, constructor) properties
}.prototype{ // no dot after "prototype"
//instance properties defined on prototype
};
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
