class Foo {}

Brendan Eich brendan at
Sat Aug 4 13:31:47 PDT 2012

Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> I was wrong about Foo not being an instance of a Function. I meant 
> class Foo {} could be equivalent to class Foo extends Object {} (which 
> you mentioned below). Then Foo.[[Prototype]] would be Object.
>> As for Object, that's ruled out for "class Foo {}" by design, to 
>> avoid class-side delegation polluting Foo with create, 
>> getOwnPropertyDescriptor, etc. If you want those, you have to say so: 
>> "class Foo extends Object {}".
> Makes sense, thanks.

As Rick's notes put it: "the clouds part and sun shining through, with 
angels singing from on high" when Dave heard Allen's rationale for why 
class Foo {} is *not* equivalent to class Foo extends Object {}. :-)


More information about the es-discuss mailing list