The class operator: a bridge between object and function exemplers

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Nov 14 14:32:39 PST 2011


On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> 
>>> if (class [1,2,3,4] === Array) ...
>>> if (class [].pop === Function) ...
>> 
>> Is it a good idea to overload this operator?
>> 
>> 1. class objectExemplar: “turn the `objectExemplar` into a class”
>> 2. class obj: “get the class of obj”

These are one and the same operator, as Allen says.


>> I would give operator #2 the name `classof` and let `class` only return the own property value of `constructor`.
> 
> 
> I'm not over-loading the class operator. I the above I was simply pointing out that this is what the operator I defined does in those circumstances. The concept of a constructor function being the "class" of an object is one of those things that has been around JS apparently from the beginning. It just didn't have a suggestively named operator.  However an object is instantiated, this operator is simply reporting that the "class"of the object  whatever is accessible as the object's "constructor".

I'm really warming up to this radical class-as-unary-get-the-constructor operator.

But, I think the missing 'constructor' method bug will bite people. Should class throw if there is no own 'constructor' property? Mutating is out, and copying is out too.

/be



More information about the es-discuss mailing list