On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:10 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
>> since in this example I only used the object literal variant. (The function,
>> array, etc variants do things that Object.create can't do.)
>
> I think this is ultimately the downfall of 'with' as a complete replacement
> for <| or extends. It works pretty well on objects but no others.
>
> SomeFunc with function(){...}
>
> Does not read nearly as well.
Interesting. I don't think it reads badly, but I can see it not being as
intuitive as the object literal form. But lots of operators would look
confusing if you didn't know what they mean (e.g., || or && or ^ or %). Once
you know that `with` simply means prototype extension, I don't think it reads
that badly. Subjective, I guess.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
