Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

David Herman dherman at
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...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list