Alternative syntax for <|

[Brendan Eich]

On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> One thing that all of these discussions are missing is the hoisting
> property of function and any possible future classes. If we use "let
> Point = ..." we lose all hoisting and the order of your declarations
> starts to matter and we will end up in the C mess where forward
> references do not work.

Allen suggested classes can't hoist here:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-August/016212.html

Quoting:

Let me try a more carefully constructed example:

class First() {
class:
  partner = (new Second).getPartner();
  competitor = (new Second).getCompetitor();
}
class Second() {
  constructor() {
     this.getCompetitor = function() {/*whatever*/*}
  }
  getPartner() {/*whatever*/}}
}

which viewed using the obvious  desugaring with hosting ould presumably be:

function First() {}
function Second() {ihis.getCompetitor = function() {/*whatever*/*}}
...
First.partner = (new Second).getPartner();    //but getPartner is not defined yet
First. competitor = (new Second).getCompetitor();  //but getCompetitor is ok
Second.prototype.getPartner = function() {/*whatever*/}}

Hosting of function works for resolving references from within function bodies.  But individual property initialization expressions for a class  are evaluated in order and can have order dependencies.  Function declarations don't have any corresponding parts that expose such dependencies but classes do.  Hosting does not eliminate those dependencies.  
----

This may seem to rely on class ("static") properties, but we want to be future-proof even if classes don't support those at first.

/be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20111116/f6fd0d90/attachment.html>