why not "new" instead of "constructor"?
Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
Sat Nov 19 14:58:33 PST 2011
>> I like the idea of replacing the method name “constructor” with something better, but “new” suggests instantiation *and* initialization to me. Is “init” a possibility?
>
> Who said anything about "replacing"?
>
> If we are trying to match or sugar the prototypal pattern, then whatever the constructor name or keyword in the syntax, there must be for class C a back-link C.prototype.constructor.
I only meant replacing in as far as the method that was previously called “constructor” is now called “new” in Allen’s example:
let Point = class {
x: 0, //not really needed unless defining an object exemplar
y: 0,
new(x,y) {
this.x = x;
this.y=y;
}
};
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
More information about the es-discuss
mailing list