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
