On Oct 30, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > Ah, I just meant for the constructor, for nothing else (Java-style ;-) > > If you have function exemplars then the word "constructor" does not appear > anywhere, hence leaving it out makes sense. In object exemplars, the word > "constructor" is there and there is no need for sugar.
function exemplars are implicitly set as the value of a property name "constructor" in all the forms that have been discussed. so while it isn't explicit, it is very real. I generally thing we will either have always or never allow for an implicit property name following super. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
