Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
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.
Right, __noSuchProperty__ -- I was an Andrea post behind.
How is this easier to compose than adding a proxy object on the
prototype chain just before Object.prototype?
> 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.
Adding a magic-name property in the prototype chain is topologically no
different (assuming no collision on the name, and no dead-reckoning by
distance along prototype chain [which is considered brittle already])
from extending the prototype chain.
Instead of asserting "bad thing" and "inappropriate", can you show where
the difference between the two (magic name vs. magic prototype) matters?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
