On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:03 AM, John J Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 see instance properties being defined in their own this.{} block > 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 can't tell if this is sarcasm... Ive long held that prototypes are the next evolutionary step up from classes - developers need to evolve now as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning? > > 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 _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
