OK. Sorry, you still haven't convinced me yet. Could someone from the committee explain me the real reasons please? If I see them, I'm OK with having only one source. If there are good reasons, I think we should use multiple sources with all advantages, which includes also reflecting current libs APIs.
Dmitry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.r...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < > dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, I didn't get it. Could you show an example of how it's potentially >> can be used, I'm curious. If there is no practical need for this -- of >> course it matters whether it worth or not. >> >> Since the spec is not approve yet, and particularly that section on >> assign and mixin, it's exactly now a good time to (re)consider it. Since if >> no mixins will be available for class-syntax (as mentioned by Allen >> recently), I at least want to see Object.mixin(...) accepting several >> arguments in order to pass to a class' extends expression. >> > > > You're missing the point. The *possible* third argument is only a > *possibility*. The one target, one source design is the _only_ form that > will get committee consensus. > > > Rick >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
