minimal classes

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Jun 27 22:55:58 PDT 2011

On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2011, at 10:00 PM, David Herman wrote:
>>> I've been concerned about the schedule risk of classes for
> Is the timeline posted somewhere?

We've talked about it since ES5 wrapped up. End of 2013 GA vote on (let's hope ES6) means spec all but done earlier that year, which means spec feature-complete about now in order to leave time for spec production and prototype implementation with user testing.

We had a cut-off at the last meeting. A few stragglers may special-plead, and we can certainly cut (Dave proposes some reductions within the late-breaking classes).

>>> - providing idiomatic syntax for calling the superclass constructor
>> But what about subclass method calling superclass method(s)?
> I think this is an essential feature for a class syntax. Calling super
> for methods is one of the features that JavaScript libraries
> prioritize very highly. They all have some way of calling super for a
> method.

I agree that the most minimal classes proposal must allow method super-chaining, not just constructor super-chaining.

In a followup, Dave referenced Allen's super proposal, extended to class methods other than constructor. But we've recently been debating a restriction to allow super(...) only, for same-named method chaining. Not sure where Dave stands on that.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list