On May 30, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > At last week's meeting we deferred super outside of class methods.
We talked about it, but I don't see the above statement captured in the minutes. It also isn't clear what you mean by "deferred". In a previous message you said that @privateName was deferred which I interpret as meaning deferred until another meeting. We certainly need to talk about a way to define private keyed methods in class declarations and @name seems like the most likely alternative. Similar, I think it is reasonable to say we deferred making a decision to have super outside of classes. That doesn't mean that there still isn't interest in doing so and that some of us want to consider talking about how to do so. Also, last week there was support for .( expressed both from the perspective of the Smalltalk-like cascaded expression use cases and from the definitional object extension perspective. My perception is that different people were had primary interests in the different use cases. Just because we may be on the path of a solution to the cascaded expression use cases doesn't mean there isn't still interest and support for the definitional use cases. Allen > > /be > > Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> How about the following use case? Adding a method with a super-reference to >> an existing object. > _______________________________________________ > 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
