Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Erik Arvidsson erik.arvidsson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 14:13:57 PDT 2012


On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:47, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
> 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"

constructor++

For the record, we went through this exercise when we designed the
Traceur classes. We started with "constrcutor", changed to "new" and
eventually went back to "constructor". The main reason for
"constructor" was that it was less confusing since we still have to
have a "constructor" field and it is more consistent with ES3 de facto
classes.

-- 
erik


More information about the es-discuss mailing list