Finding a "safety syntax" for classes
dherman at mozilla.com
Sun Mar 25 00:05:07 PDT 2012
On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> I suspect Dave misinterpreted Nadav's question. So did I, when I originally read it.
Oh, yes, thanks for the clarification. I thought he was talking about the superclass position, but indeed he was talking about the prototype methods. He was clear, I just didn't read correctly.
> To actually add a computed function as the value of a prototype object property within the class definition is pretty much the same thing as defining an arbitrary valued prototype data property. Defining non-method prototype properties is one of the features that we have previous been unable to reach consensus on and for that reason was intentionally excluded from the maximal-minimal proposal. As the proposal says:
> "There is (intentionally) no direct declarative way to define either prototype data properties (other than methods) class properties, or instance property"
> "Class properties and prototype data properties need be created outside the declaration."
Yeah, I think this is fine and future-proof for expanding on in the future. IOW, we're not against what Nadav's asking for, we're just trying to define the base level foundation for building on in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss