Is class syntax really necessary ?

Irakli Gozalishvili rfobic at gmail.com
Sun Jun 12 15:38:54 PDT 2011


On Monday, June 13, 2011, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:On Monday, 2011-06-13 at 24:03 , Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>                     On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:
>             Here is gist I wrote before:https://gist.github.com/986487#file_implementation.js
> What Function.create are you using there?
> Is there a missing return statement in function extend?
> Yeap, sorry! It's there now.
> Ok. But what is that Function.create your gist relies on?
>


It was proposed before I believe, it's like Object.create


Function.create = function (proto, func) {
    var f = function() {
         return func.apply(this, arguments);
     }
     f.__proto__ = proto
     return f
}


> Another idea I had was that super can be similar to private. Here is some example:
> Please note that the private(this)/private(other) syntax is intentional straw, to be burned up and replaced with something better.
> I think you're trying to self-host too much. People can write classes the hard way, with super too. They need sugar, not salt or pepper ;-).
> /be
>

I just don't know how wild I can go with idea :) Isn't it better to
leave off super for the moment and tackle that separately ?

-- 
Regards
--
Irakli Gozalishvili
Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/
Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France <http://goo.gl/maps/3CHu>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list