Private fields also won't work as expected and the mandatory super call in constructor is also different from ES5. Let's add species and special class related Symbol so that it makes no sense to define classes "just sugar" + there's no point in avoiding classes at all costs when any of these features is needed.
Regards P.S. Babel mistakenly sold classes as "just sugar" and never worked properly with Custom Elements and builtins extend until version 7 which is still not perfect but at least it doesn't throw errors for no reason On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:15 PM Ranando King <king...@gmail.com> wrote: > @ljharb: It seems you now understand what I was trying to say. Sadly, I'm > not always the most eloquent. > > > As you've all pointed out, it's not "just sugar" in the sense that you > couldn't do it in ES5; it's more that parallel syntax and API were > created for the new functionality in ES6. > > The intent of my proposal is to provide both member fields and privilege > levels to the `class` keyword, and the equivalent for object literals in a > way that meets with both an intuitive declaration style, and a reasonable > access notation that breaks as little as few as possible of the developers > expectations of what can and can't be done. > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:18 AM Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As you've all pointed out, it's not "just sugar" in the sense that you >> couldn't do it in ES5; it's more that parallel syntax and API were created >> for the new functionality in ES6. Thanks for providing clear code examples >> of how one might extend builtins without `class`. >> >> @kai: yes, extending builtins makes sense, in that it's an important part >> of ES6. Invoking "the web" doesn't negate *any* of the features of the >> language, new or old. Separately, not every web use involves any JSON >> serialization in either direction. >> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:15 AM, T.J. Crowder < >> tj.crow...@farsightsoftware.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Michael Theriot >>> <michael.lee.ther...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > `Reflect.construct` allows subclasses to obtain internal slots without >>> > `super()` / class syntax. >>> >>> Indeed, Darien pointed that out as well (and if you two hadn't, I would >>> have. :-) >>> >>> > This is the first I have heard `class` is anything but sugar. >>> >>> The accurate statement would be that `class` lets you do things you >>> couldn't do in ES5. But so does `Reflect.construct`. I believe it was >>> important to the "no `new`" crowd that a non-`class` mechanism existed for >>> creating objects using Error and Array as prototypes. >>> >>> -- T.J. Crowder >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
