Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Andreas Rossberg rossberg at
Fri Mar 23 02:48:59 PDT 2012

On 23 March 2012 08:42, Claus Reinke <claus.reinke at> wrote:
> - would it make sense to name the constructor after the class
>   (avoiding 'constructor' and 'new')?


I always considered this a bad choice of C++-derived class systems. It
violates Don't-repeat-yourself, and thus is annoying e.g. when you rename
things. It is less searchable and less readable locally, because you have
to take the name of the surrounding class into account to decide what kind
of declaration you are looking at. And it doesn't scale to anonymous
classes, in case these ever become an option for ES.

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

More information about the es-discuss mailing list