Sep 27 meeting notes
rnystrom at google.com
Fri Sep 30 17:06:33 PDT 2011
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com>wrote:
> On 09/30/2011 04:37 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> since we haven't come up with a way to do 2 and 5 that works,
> That's what makes this into a dead end. Worse, by claiming the class
> syntax you'd be precluding finding a different way that works in the future.
Can you go into a bit more detail about why those two points matter so much
and what they mean for you? Even if it is a dead end, it would be nice to
know how far we have to backtrack before we can try to start down a
2. Ensure the shape of the instance
This seems like a performance optimization to me, unless there's other
details I'm not aware of. I don't know how important it is for the language
spec to cater to that, but it seems like we've gotten along without it
pretty well up until now.
5. Allow const properties
The syntax proposed so far does enable this for properties on the prototype
and class, just not for the instance. Is that enough, or do we need to go
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss