Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Wed Mar 21 12:07:35 PDT 2012


> On Mar 21, 2012, at 6:35 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> 
>> Hi Axel,
>> 
>> We should probably hold off on private and static member syntax until there's consensus on the other open issues:
>> 
>> - "constructor" vs. "new" (Dave and I say "new", Allen says "constructor";  mostly aesthetic - can be put off for now)
>> - class-side inheritance?  (Mark and I say no, Allen and Russell say yes)
>> - What restrictions for RHS of "extends"?  Must it be a constructor?  (Russell and I say yes)
>> 
>> Additionally, I'm still worried about how we call the superclass constructor: [...]

I’ve removed the static block. Sugar for private name objects is worth it, IMO. I consider the other issues orthogonal to my syntax sketch (I’m not saying that they are not important, they just don’t matter as much to me). Even whether or not it’ll be super(...), super.constructor(...) or something else.


-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120321/9a1d7d9b/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list