Finding a "safety syntax" for classes
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Wed Mar 21 11:47:57 PDT 2012
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Smith <khs4473 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think its easier to explain - it will actually result in a constructor on the prototype.
> The actual constructor function and the .constructor property really should always be in sync - this helps with that.
> "new" doesn't have those benefits - people might expect to be able to call .new() like in ruby.
> "new" conflicts with the new <object> proposal.
> There are some minor practical considerations on the "constructor" side, and aesthetic considerations on the "new" side. Instead of squaring off now, can we just agree to leave if off the table temporarily?
> Agreed, table it.
We have to make a decision or a spec. can't be written. There needs to at least be a stake in the ground. it looks to me like that stake is "constructor"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss