On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> Using subclassing to bung in some arbitrary trait is really terrible. >> :/ It requires either adding it up high in your class hierarchy, or >> having to write a custom NoSuchPropertyClass which extends your >> superclass, so you can then extend it. > > Ok, let's not hand-wave mixin syntax, though (Andrea hacks __proto__). What > API do you prefer?
I'm partial to magic-named functions, but that's probably my experience speaking, rather than a more thoughtful opinion. Symbol-named magic functions would be better, since we have those and most other languages don't. Andrea wasn't even hacking __proto__ - they're just adding it to the class prototype, so newly constructed objects'll have it. >> I'm rather surprised that the group actually considered that sort of >> code to be appropriate - it's known that it doesn't compose well with >> other traits-as-superclasses or normal subclassing. > > What code was not appropriate? TC39 balked at standardizing library API, and > good for them. You want better API, design it! The use of a Proxy superclass to implement the functionality, which you demonstrated in an earlier email. > Or did you want `sealed class` or other such syntax, and I misunderstood? Nah, using superclasses in general is the bad thing here; it doesn't compose well without multi-inheritance, which JS likely isn't going to do. ~TJ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
