Although I guess it’s not very easy to desugar to es5 if there is no way to enumerate prototype methods/properties. (probably impossible?)
> On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Glen Huang <curvedm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Actually mixins shouldn’t be done with Object.assign if that’s what you mean. > > I think the language should provide a syntax for that (e.g., Lightweight > traits on http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2014/06/03/my-ecmascript-7-wishlist/ > <http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2014/06/03/my-ecmascript-7-wishlist/>) > >> On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Russell Leggett <russell.legg...@gmail.com >> <mailto:russell.legg...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com >> <mailto:zenpars...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> The question is: what should ES6 classes choose as the default? What's the >> most useful default, independent of various backward-looking consistencies? >> What, if the future is bigger than the past, would be best? >> >> Framed that way, then non-enumerability. >> >> If we want to preserve any kind of conceptual integrity for enumerability, >> then enumerability must indicate that the property is a data element within >> a data structure. >> >> Whether enumerability is worth preserving, I don't know. >> >> I'll just throw out mixins as a possible reason to keep enumerability. >> >> - Russ >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto: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
