Sep 27 meeting notes

[Brendan Eich]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 3:34 AM, Waldemar Horwat wrote:

> On 09/30/2011 05:07 PM, Brendan Eich 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,
>> 
>> We can add these later  ...
> 
> Those two statements you made are in direct contradiction.

No, not logically -- you would have to assume something more, like for instance:

>  If there were a way to do it that's satisfactory to the group, we would have found it by now.

and I didn't make this third statement. It's your assumption.

Just because we haven't found something, doesn't mean we (or some wider group) never will. But I can't disprove it.

What needs demonstration, not assertion, is how minimal classes preclude adding instance variable declaration forms of whatever syntax in the future that address item 5. See my followup about item 2 and const class, which provides the shape guarantee.

But I take it you want to have no classes, in case even minimal classes would somehow paint us into a corner. If that's right, we should cut them from ES6 and get on with the rest of the work.

/be