Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Russell Leggett russell.leggett at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 12:56:26 PDT 2012


On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Herby Vojčík <herby at mailbox.sk> wrote:

> Russell Leggett wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com
>> <mailto:dherman at mozilla.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I debated about this. In fact, I almost did go with new.
>> Personally, I'm fine with either. I think what swung me in favor of
>> "constructor" was:
>>
>> * other people seem to be happy with it, and that's what I'm shooting
>> for here
>> * CoffeeScript uses it. I don't really use CS, but it seemed short
>> enough for them.
>> * anyone making an additional .constructor is doing something bad, or
>> maybe I just can't think of a good reason.
>>
>
> Well, I favour constructor because it blends well with the underlying
> mechanics... there _is_ a property named constructor in a prototype,
> pointing exactly to the constructor method of that prototype. So if I looks
> at the class {...} block as a blueprint for how the .prototype of the class
> will look like, it is the right name.


Haha, yes - that too. Forgot to mention it!


>
>
>  Let's chalk this one down as a bike shedding issue that won't hold it
>> back.
>>
>> - Russ
>>
>>
>>    Dave
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120320/32917025/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list