Minimalist Classes

Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshnikov at
Tue Nov 1 11:05:49 PDT 2011

On 01.11.2011 21:57, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
>> The technique I showed of course initially is designed to be used 
>> with class-system; though, I think it can be adopted to class-free 
>> system as well.
> We're not going to delete and restore. That's a non-starter for 
> performance and observable mutation reasons.
> If you think something can be adapted, you have to show how. At this 
> point we don't need more assertions.

Well, at least I showed that the problem which so loudly sound here (w/o 
seeing alternative solutions) isn't actually the problem -- even for a 

When I was showing it, it was just a reaction on the "big" problem 
issued by Dave and others, it wasn't the proposal "let's standardize 
it". Of course I as well understand that it's not good for performance.

And the point b) with "statically attached" class for a method, yes, it 
also was here for years and can be implemented in any ES3 library (with 
using `caller` which though is deprecated for user level, super calls 
were more than elegant --

I noticed that I noticed, the current classes syntax with <| 
}.prototype.{ }.constructor.{ will (OK, IMO) afraid the users (seems 
mostly from classes the thread is started, not just super calls).


> /be
>> Dmitry.
>>>> If Dave (and you) is talking about the problem of i-looping at 
>>>> resolving deeper than 2nd level super-calls, then even call-stack 
>>>> is not needed.
>>>> See this implementation: (with 
>>>> delete-restore the parent link technique).
>>>> Usage level with examples (line 95): 
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at <mailto:es-discuss at>

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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list