The class operator: a bridge between object and function exemplers

Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Mon Nov 14 15:09:38 PST 2011


>> 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”
>> 
>> 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.

OK. Overloading might have been the wrong term – it is the same implementation. I meant semantic overloading: two semantically different roles, performed by the same operator (see below).

> 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".


So you don’t think the two roles clash semantically? (1) “Turn an object exemplar into a class” versus (1) “get the class of an object”. Both are definitely useful! But that they can be performed by the same operator seems like a happy coincidence. If (1) was to be further refined, e.g., as Brendan suggested, by throwing an exception if an object exemplar does not have a "constructor" method then it seems both roles would drift further apart. I’m mainly arguing for a clear separation of concerns.

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111115/4f8c006c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list