Allen, Yes, this makes sense and is desirable. ( the rationale being that the word "new" in "new Point" can be connected to "what is going to happen" when the code in "new(){ ... }" is executed )
Rick On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote: > > On Nov 19, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jake Verbaten wrote: > > [snip] > > >> let Point = class { >> x: 0, //not really needed unless defining an object exemplar >> y: 0, >> new(x,y) { >> this.x = x; >> this.y=y; >> } >> }; >> > > Yes this is better, could we go one step further and allow for > > Point.new(1,2) > > to work instead of new Point(1,2). > > If we just make the "new" method property create an instance of Point and > pass that in as the this value then it would solve the need for having new > <ObjectExemplar>. > > This would behave similarly to selfish's .new function. > > > You are pushing into spaces I want to avoid discussing right now because > we have a tendency to prematurely "rat hole" on such secondary issues > without resolving the primary question. > > For now, the question is: is "new" a more desirable name than > "constructor" for the programmer provided code that is run by the new > operator? > > > The only issue is that all code that checks obj.constructor for the link > will break because we no longer link the constructor anymore. > > > This falls into the area of "semantic details" that I alluded to. If a > yes consensus formed for the above question then it would be worthwhile to > start to dig into those details as we tried to move on to the next > question: Is is practical to use "new" as the name ... > > 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