I've been thinking about something Brendan said in his last podcast about
how the community and TC39 can't agree on the syntax for class initializers
because of how flexible he made it at the beginning. So a little idea came
to me.
How about adding an Object.getMetaProperties or
On 30.03.2011 1:24, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 29.03.2011 2:51, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
...
Regarding classes in general I have the following table of classes
kinds:
|first-class | second-class (or
On 29.03.2011 2:51, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Exactly. Classes are not about just the class keyword, but about
the _ability to classify_, i.e. to program in classified (i.e. with
object-patterned programming). JS supports (and supported
Mixins are a great idea. Whatever decision is made about the position and
name of the inheritance declaration, they add a lot of value and are very
easy to understand.
A couple of related ideas:
class Vector {
superclass: Point, uses: Comparable
}
uses looks like a better fit. It's shorter
On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 29.03.2011 2:51, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
...
Regarding classes in general I have the following table of classes kinds:
|first-class | second-class (or first-order)
On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
That strawman is essentially functional record update for setting __proto__
AKA [[Prototype]], although it reads backwards compared to FRU in ML-family
languages. Those languages put the update on the right, often linked using
'with'
On 28.03.2011 0:05, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 27, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just to use already reserved `extends` keyword for
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
Exactly. Classes are not about just the class keyword, but about the
_ability to classify_, i.e. to program in classified (i.e. with
object-patterned programming). JS supports (and supported all these years
both approaches:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Dmitry's suggestion of #proto or a similar sigil-distinguished name makes me
wonder, though: could we have FRU via the spread operator *and* proto
presetting without adding a funky [no LineTerminator here] proto infix
operator?
On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
That is why in my proposal
class Foo {};
is defined to mean almost exactly the same thing as
function Foo() {};
(but things start to change when you put something between the
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just to use already reserved `extends` keyword for specifying a
superclass? These XML-like braces looks not so elegant.
I asked this question a couple of days ago. The answer is quite simple.
On 27.03.2011 22:33, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com mailto:dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just to use already reserved `extends` keyword for
specifying a superclass? These XML-like braces looks
Sure, it was discussed in this thread
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-March/012963.html
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-March/012963.htmlJuan
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
On Mar 27, 2011, at 11:33 AM, Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov
dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just to use already reserved `extends` keyword for specifying a
superclass? These XML-like braces looks not so elegant.
I asked this
Allen makes the point that class D extends B {...} may look too much like
languages where it means something quite different.
Yeah, I just don't buy the argument that having different semantics should lead
to different syntax: it proves too much. By definition, JS has a different
semantics
Consistently extending object literals into class literals was one of the
goals of this particular design but that goal isn't a requirement. At the
latest TC39 meeting some participants expressed an opinion that the prototype
specification for an object literal should go outside of the
Hi Allen, all good points. A few thoughts below, interspersed.
On Mar 27, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
At the latest TC39 meeting some participants expressed an opinion that the
prototype specification for an object literal should go outside of the
brackets.
Hi,
Just a small note on
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:super_in_object_initialisers
(reading currently)
Why not just to use already reserved `extends` keyword for specifying a
superclass? These XML-like braces looks not so elegant.
Coffee users the same classes syntactic
18 matches
Mail list logo
