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