Classes as Sugar is now ready for discussion

Tom Van Cutsem tomvc.be at gmail.com
Thu Sep 9 03:13:44 PDT 2010


There's no mistake that dedicated syntax for traits would help users and
implementors alike. However, while I (or others) could definitely come up
with a 'traits-as-sugar', or even a 'traits-as-a-new-value' proposal, that
still wouldn't solve the version evolution problem associated with trait
composition (or any other traditional inheritance mechanism). As long as
this remains a deal-breaker, I don't think it's worth looking into
alternative traits proposals.

As Dave said, traits.js is out there for people to experiment with. Any
feedback on usability issues of the design in its current form are highly
appreciated.

2010/9/9 David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com>

> > Agreed; perhaps my question was not clear. If there was a Traits-like
> > proposal that did include new syntax, would you be against it because
> > you can implement something similar as a library without needing new
> > semantics, or would you be more inclined to reserve judgement until
> > you could actually review a proposal and see what the proposed
> > benefits were?
>
> The latter (speaking for myself, of course).
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20100909/6fd8336b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list