On Sunday, 25 December 2022 at 02:34:35 UTC+11 Doug Kearns wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 00:33, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> One thing I'm not yet sure about is the declaration. Currently it works >> like this: >> >> this.name: string >> this.gender: Gender >> >> Notice that there is no "var" keyword. It's not needed to recognize the >> declaration. I can't think of a good reason to add "var" here, other >> than that a declaration would be expected to always have "var". Well, I >> don't have that expectation. > > > This following currently defines a field and is, without context, > indistinguishable from any other assignment. Is that intended? > > this.name = "Somebody" > Is that right? if that's a declaration as well, shouldn't that include the type? I thought that the declaration would be like this; this.name : *string *= "Somebody" Or is auto-type detection at play here too? > As methods still require :def I think it would be more consistent to not > special case field declarations and still require the :var. > > For class members most languages use the "static" keyword. It's a bit >> of a weird word, but I suppose most people are used to it, and I can't >> find a popular language that has a good alternative. >> >> If we leave out "var" for object members, I suppose we should also leave >> it out for class members. We then get: >> >> static oneClassMember: number >> static twoClassMember: string >> >> I think this looks fine. Any objections? >> > > It seems from the documentation that static fields can be referenced as > bare identifiers? This feels a bit unexpected to me given that instance > fields are always qualified. > Just sharing another idea - perhaps also require "*static.*" as the class scope prefix, and enforce it - for all the same reasons that "*this.*" would be enforced as the object scope prefix. Alternatively, perhaps we could use the actual class name as the enforced prefix for static class scoped variables. Either option would avoid confusion with inner function variables. Either way, it seems consistency is important here. The following is all over the place; var static oneClassMember: number var static twoClassMember: string this.threeObjectMember: number this.fourObjectMember: string I think that the following also looks inconsistent; static oneClassMember: number static twoClassMember: string this.threeObjectMember: number this.fourObjectMember: string I think the following is better, more consistent, and this would be my preference; static.oneClassMember: number static.twoClassMember: string this.threeObjectMember: number this.fourObjectMember: string I don't mind var, but I don't see a real need for it either, because the declarations will have the type name included. Anyway, if going to use var, please keep it consistent, eg like this; var static.oneClassMember: number var static.twoClassMember: string var this.threeObjectMember: number var this.fourObjectMember: string -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/9cfcfddd-065a-4bbd-8891-eb9adb2c1b71n%40googlegroups.com.
