Sorry but `class B extends Object.mixing(Mixin1, Mixin2, Mixin3...)`
does not make sense to me ... would you mind explaining that ? I am curious about this "need to have more args there" since nowadays there are many ways to simulate that and `String.fromCharCode`, as example, demonstrated already that "unlimited number of args" is a lost for everyone (reaching platform limit in terms of integers, memory, etc, at once) On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov < dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
