So far, I prefer your proposal to draft ES6 by a lot -- especially since
I missed the hideous Number special-casing spread around in the draft!
Jason Orendorff wrote:
> Is `C === C[@@new]`?
Good question. I think calling `C(...args)` should be the same as
calling `new C(...args)`. How best to specify that, I'm not sure.
Isn't the question of whether C(...args) is allowed as short for new
C(...args) a separable "option" from the rest of your proposal (and from
draft ES6)?
I'd hate for your proposal to founder on this somewhat controversial issue.
I don't think `C === C[@@new]` needs to be a goal,
Should be specified not to be === in my view because:
it wouldn't
hold for regular functions, or for classes that don't define a
constructor (those inherit their @@new method from the base class), or
for classes that contain a `static [Symbol.new]()` method.
See Allen's latest followup on this -- is it a static error to have both
constructor and the static [Symbol.new]() method?
But as an
implementation detail, if that's the easiest way to specify it, OK.
See above. LMK if you disagree with anything, or anything's unclear.
Thanks again for writing up your counter-proposal!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
