> On Mar 21, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> Hi Axel, >> >> We should probably hold off on private and static member syntax until >> there's consensus on the other open issues: >> >> - "constructor" vs. "new" (Dave and I say "new", Allen says "constructor"; >> mostly aesthetic - can be put off for now) >> - class-side inheritance? (Mark and I say no, Allen and Russell say yes) >> - What restrictions for RHS of "extends"? Must it be a constructor? >> (Russell and I say yes) >> >> Additionally, I'm still worried about how we call the superclass >> constructor: [...]
I’ve removed the static block. Sugar for private name objects is worth it, IMO. I consider the other issues orthogonal to my syntax sketch (I’m not saying that they are not important, they just don’t matter as much to me). Even whether or not it’ll be super(...), super.constructor(...) or something else. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
