Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Herby Vojčík herby at mailbox.sk
Fri Mar 23 04:00:50 PDT 2012



Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 23 March 2012 08:42, Claus Reinke <claus.reinke at talk21.com
> <mailto:claus.reinke at talk21.com>> wrote:
>
>     - would it make sense to name the constructor after the class
>        (avoiding 'constructor' and 'new')?
>
>
> -1.
>
> 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.
Good point. ;-)

The 'constructor' gets created anyway if classes are to be compatible 
with plain constructor functions semantics. That is big plus for 
'constructor' (and big minus for 'new' since people may look for 
Class.prototype["new"} and not find it).

I will repeat myself, I proposed this thing but no one reacted. It's 
short, does not clash as new mentioned before, and does not preclude 
constuctor magic in any way:

class Class extends SuperClass {
   @(params) { body } // constructor
   @x(params) { body } // private-named method
   y(params) { body } // plain method
}

Of course, this syntax is based on '@xxx' private name access pattern is 
also in the language - constructor is intentionally reusing this syntax, 
but with 'empty identifier' - as a special short construct to use for 
constructor. Reusing private name syntax is safe as to name clash, 
because it does not clash with property names (and using empty 
identifier, neither does clash with real private names).

> /Andreas

Herby


More information about the es-discuss mailing list