On Nov 3, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > I noticed the absence of setter's, getter's. Would this be valid syntax?
Yes, that's already in object literal syntax. My gist is a fork of Jeremy's, he didn't add 'em so I didn't either. At this point they are context, assumed. They're in ES5! /be > > set health(value) { > if (value < 0) { > throw new Error("Health must be non-negative."); > } > @health = value; > } > > > > On Nov 3, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> What is "super-intuitive" about running 'class C' up against an arbitrary >> expression, which is then evaluated and *copied* (details fuzzy here) as the >> class prototype? >> >> Arguments about feelings and intuition are not that helpful. Saying why you >> need to construct a class that way, where no such object copying primitive >> exists in JS, would be more helpful. IOW, what's the use-case? >> >> /be >> >> On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Matthew J Tretter wrote: >> >>> So to clarify, is the dynamic super issue the whole reason that Jeremy's >>> dynamic construction of classes is considered not doable? Because it seems >>> to me that super may not be worth that trade off. Besides, Python's super >>> implementation requires the hardcoding of the class and that doesn't cause >>> much of a stink. If something similar would give us this super-intuitive >>> syntax and the ability to build classes from arbitrary object literals, it >>> seems like not a big loss. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss