Complete Minimal Classes
khs4473 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 6 19:49:34 PDT 2012
> I'm not assuming you're a newbie. Heck, I consider myself a
> newbie. Perhaps I'm just jaded. Two weeks ago, I had hope that max-min
> would get us something. Now I'm feeling less hopeful.
No way - we're gonna get classes in. : )
> Arbitrary prototype properties is surely to draw fire. It can be a
> foot-gun and might conflict with instance properties in the future.
Foot gun: yes. I've shot myself in the foot with it. But I think it can
be addressed in a way that's footgun-proof. We're going to need arbitrary
prototype properties at some point. I can elaborate on why I think so
later. As for conflicting with instance initializers, our footgun-proof
syntax wouldn't need to conflict with that.
As for your fourth, most controversial point, separating call and
> constructor would diverge from the existing pattern. Number() and new
> Number() always call the same function.
They don't always do the same thing though - check out Date (15.9.2 &
Otherwise, we have to do something painful like:
if (this instanceof MyClass)
// construct it
return new MyClass(...args);
> I'm not trying to shut you down. I just really want classes to happen,
> even if in the most minimal form. I apologize if I seem dismissive, I just
> don't see it as being the most productive way of getting there.
No problem! The "half-baked" thing was a little over the top, I admit. : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss