Yet another class declaration proposal

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at
Thu Nov 3 10:08:23 PDT 2011


Minor quibbles

get rid of
   [incAge]: ...
just make it

we don't need both [propname] and @propname in property declarations and @propname has a narrower meaning (which is good).  Also, I don't want to unnecessarily couple object/class declaration syntax with [ ] semantics.

You don't show other at foo but we need it.  I would prefer it to be written as other. at foo

You don't show it, but I would be fine with @foo as an abreavation for this at foo but if it is available we could probably get away with requiring this. at foo

I know this will be controversial, but I would prefer only having the expression form.  The reason is that

let Monster =  Being <| mylib.mixin(Evil, Scary) <| class {...}

is an important usecase and it is harder to make the syntax work with a pure class declaration.


On Nov 3, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:

> FWIW: I’ve picked what I like from the various proposals.
> -- 
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at
> home:
> twitter:
> blog:
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list