I'd say that defining a class directly in a class field is extremely niche,
and by doing that, the user "should know what they've done" too.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Ranando King wrote:
> That scenario is intentional. I see no need to ban it. I would only want
> to ban the confusing case
That scenario is intentional. I see no need to ban it. I would only want to
ban the confusing case of direct assignment in the outer class declaration.
For cases where the user intentionally defines a class as you have done,
they should know that what they've done will create a class that is
`field = (function () { return class { }; }())` - how exactly would you
propose banning creating a class inside class fields?
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Ranando King wrote:
> I've been thinking about the problems around this some more. At first I
> couldn't get past the dissenting
Even with the suggestion I've made, I would still recommend keeping the
post-super() initialization function. It would simply get all of the class
fields from the prototype. Those that haven't already been initialized
would be, guaranteeing that all fields that need to be initialized would be
by
I've been thinking about the problems around this some more. At first I
couldn't get past the dissenting arguments from issue #123, but I've since
come up with a solution that might work. What if:
* Make it illegal to define a class directly on a class field in a class
declaration.
* Move the
There is literally only one language I've seen that has anything like
this, and it's Verilog, a hardware description language. (It's also of
questionable utility, and it's restricted to just simulator-only
constructs.) That's not an endorsement, more like the opposite of one.
-
Isiah Meadows
Wow that's fanatically disgusting. Please no.
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 12:27 Bob Myers wrote:
> To continue the "stupid idea of the day" series, I have often felt the
> need to indicate a return value other than as part of a `return` statement.
>
> Perhaps this is my BASIC background--the dialect I
To continue the "stupid idea of the day" series, I have often felt the need
to indicate a return value other than as part of a `return` statement.
Perhaps this is my BASIC background--the dialect I used all those years ago
allowed an assignment to the function name to pre-specify a return value,
8 matches
Mail list logo
