Property vs Behavior inheritance

John J Barton johnjbarton at johnjbarton.com
Fri Dec 16 08:57:55 PST 2011


On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> I'll just re-state this paragraph to illustrate that the glass is half
> empty:
>
> Unlike classes, object exemplars are just objects. There is no language
> support for detecting a object exemplar; developers have no help in
> avoiding pernicious debilitating bugs caused by data values  in base
> classes.
>
>
> “There is no language support for detecting a object exemplar” – via
> static analysis? Yes, tricky, one could infer object exemplars by looking
> at the operands of "new".
>

(I believe that 'language support' effectively mean single-file static
analysis, not whole program analysis implied by your trick).

>
> Would you say that either of these problems exist with class declarations
> that have object exemplar semantics?
> => Easier to detect via static analysis.
> => Can forbid non-method properties in prototypes.
>
>
Sorry I don't understand the question, or how it is related to my
quest. I'll answer two I think are related:

Is there a static-analysis test that can be applied to an object
literal to determine if it is suitable as an object exemplar?
 Yes, forbid non-method properties.
Is there a reasonable mechanism to go beyond a non-method-property
restriction on object exemplars?
 Yes, use those fancy Object.defineProperty thingys to allow the 1%
cases where you want non-method exemplar props.

jjb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111216/461f0539/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list