On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > OK, I have a fix for the missing constructor problem. See: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:class_operator#missing_constructors >
Nit: [[ctor]], obviously a temporary hack-name. How about [[ClassConstructor]]? or maybe [[DefaultConstructor]]? Non-nit: don't we want inherited 'constructor' to work, unless it has the value Object? /be > > Allen > > > On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > >> >> On Nov 15, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Russell Leggett wrote: >> >>> ... >>> >>> As has been said, a missing constructor would not result in the expected >>> behavior. I can also imagine other scenarios where the behavior would be >>> unusual. >> >> I agree, there is an issue with missing constructors. Certainly my example >> were assume that it would never be missing from objects would be used as >> object exemplars. >> >> It's pretty clear that to solve this (if it is solvable) requires a more >> complex definition of the class operator. I'm thinking about that now. You >> examples are helpful... >> >> Allen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
