why not "new" instead of "constructor"?

Sat Nov 19 15:54:59 PST 2011

> Turns out anything we do here is a special form, at least for named classes. So 'constructor' in the harmony:classes proposal still on the wiki (which is not fully in Harmony)is not just a prototype method like any other. Therefore I agree we could use 'new' instead.

That’s what I missed. But wouldn’t that change Allen’s `class` operator to something that performs David’s desugaring as a tranformation (from something that simply returns the value of property `constructor`)?

-- 
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/20111120/8fd90939/attachment.html>