On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_extension_literal_class_pattern > > const className = superClass <| function(/*constructor parameters */) { > //constructor body > super.constructor(/*arguments to super constructor */); > this.{ > //per instance property definitions > }; > }.prototype.{ > //instance properties defined on prototype > }.constructor.{ > //class (ie, constructor) properties > };
I totally appreciate Allen's effort to build coherence around the operator-to-be-named-curiously triangle. For me this form is confusing compared to a class-based language. A() should construct A-s, A.foo() should be a method of A-s. Prototypical classes should have a prototype as their super class. But here we have a .prototype defining instance properties. I guess every JS dev is puzzled by .prototype already. Compared to a class language, it seems like a hack. Do we really need it? I'd love to see a riff on Gozala's selfish with the declarative approach. Maybe the gap is too large. jjb _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
