Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Kevin Smith khs4473 at
Tue Mar 20 22:24:08 PDT 2012

> We can live quite nicely with treating class declaration like const
> declarations.  The name is logically hoisted so it is visible over the
> lexical scope, but the name is temporally dead until the class declaration
> is executed, in statement sequence, as an initializer.

This looks good to me.

Personally I think the answer should be "A" which implies that we have
> class-side inheritance.

I'm still trying to form an opinion on this.  Dart has no static method
inheritance.  In the spec, there's the following commentary:

*Inheritance of static methods has little utility in Dart. Static methods
*be overridden. Any required static function can be obtained from its
*library, and there is no need to bring it into scope via inheritance.
*shows that developers are confused by the idea of inherited methods that
are not*
*instance methods*

I'd be interested to hear other viewpoints on the matter.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list