OK, I had feeling that I already asked this before, and it is true, more than half and year ago: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-October/025929.html. This is why I was under impression that it was accepted and the methods should use multiple args. I completely forgot about it. And again, I can see this "mystic descriptors map" mentioned as a "reason", which clearly ins't the reason.
By analyzing recent draft I was surprised not seeing multiple args for the mentioned methods which caused me to write this mail. I still would love seeing it corrected in the spec and standardized this way (which allows doing things like: class B extends Object.mixing(Mixin1, Mixin2, Mixin3...), which of course is not the best and even ugly way in contrast with "use" for mixins I mentioned, but -- anyways, this is different question; since we're not gonna have class-mixins, which is flow IMO, it's acceptable approach). Dmitry On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
