class sugar: static inheritance

Mark S. Miller erights at
Wed Jun 8 08:50:49 PDT 2011

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:

> Btw, in both C++ and Java, the semantics of "protected" is a mess, in
> different ways.
> Sure. Let's not make those mistakes. Non-fixable in your view?
Not necessary in my view. There are all sorts of old constructs that address
needs that turn out to be rare. Again, I've encountered an actual need for
this only rarely, and only a mild need. As many people have said, language
design largely consists of deciding to leave things out[1]. We should do
more of that ;).

Many of the things we pulled from classes to make it simple enough to get
accepted -- "requires"/"abstract", traits, earlier error checking, coupling
to trademarks[2] -- are all more compelling that "protected".

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:

> On Jun 8, 2011, at 3:41 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> > Which may be a slippery slope :(
> We are already on the slope, the question is traction of the "hold here"
> people vs. "it's fun, slip some more" users (some users will want
> protected).

Count me as a "hold here"er ;).

[1] Who said that first?
[2] Several of us discussed coupling classes to trademarks but IIRC never
actually written up as part of the strawman.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list