axel at rauschma.de
Wed Nov 2 05:34:50 PDT 2011
The new more object-literal-style syntax is great. "private" sticks out a bit, but it’s not a deal-breaker. It could even be good for the code if it had to appear at the beginning (kind of like a section). Such a section would be great for object literals, too. Maybe we can find a syntax that works for both (as in future-friendly)!
>> And if we're trying to emulate classical OO, then how about just dropping the ability to define data properties on the prototype.
> I am all for that! I kept it for parity with jashkenas's three.js example, but the r, g, and b props there are vacuous default proto-props (ditto the Monster example's proto var and const).
Great great idea! Very newbie-friendly. The error message could tell you: put those properties into the constructor.
>> Your private instance variables are quite interesting.
> Yes, that is a missing ingredient in most proposals we've seen.
>> One nit: you're using @ as both a sigil in @name and as an operator in other at name. I would expect other. at name instead.
> No, it's a prefix operator if in operand context (like / starting a regexp), a binary operator in operator context (/ as division).
> Trying to avoid .@ all over, and this.@ noise.
this at name, other at name
this. at name, other. at name
>> What about just a dot with nothing on the left hand side? Can '.foo' be shorthand for 'this.foo'? Or are there grammatical issues with that?
> That could work with [no LineTerminator here] restriction on the left, which is awkward -- it mandates manual semicolon insertion of you assign .foo = bar after a baz() statement. We thought about this in consider how to reform with, but that's a dead end.
> Another sigil is hard to justify for the this.publicProp case, and for dyadic methods, etc., other.publicProp is how you spell it -- the dot, I mean. So one would want this.publicProp anyway. Between this consideration and the preference for private, I'm fine stopping with @ for private.
I think the namespacing via this is a feature, it give the code a nice uniform look:
if (this.foo === other.foo)
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss