Finding a "safety syntax" for classes

Brendan Eich brendan at
Tue Mar 27 11:59:18 PDT 2012

Russell Leggett wrote:
> Can we make it writable:false, configurable:true? Of course, that 
> would only be a minor deterrent from changing it around, but maybe 
> just enough?

This has zero integrity, so is IMHO worse than worthless -- it's 
misleading. Not that anyone will count on it, but stopping assignments 
while allowing reconfiguration or deletion and redefinition does not 
smell right.

To answer Dave's question, I meant that classes without any extra 
Object.defineProperty calls can be used to implement built-ins. Not a 
huge win but seemingly better than requiring Object.defineProperty for 
that case -- assuming class declarations create a constructor property 
on the class prototype.

If we want class C {} to create no C.prototype.constructor back-link to 
C, then we're not sugaring the prototypal pattern. That seems like too 
much innovation instead of desugaring, but you could model it via delete 
C.prototype.constructor after class C{} assuming constructor is 

Of course one could argue based on desugaring to user-defined (not 
built-in) functions that C.prototype.constructor should be configurable 
and writable:

js> function f(){}
js> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(f, 'prototype')
({configurable:false, enumerable:false, value:{}, writable:true})
js> Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(f.prototype, 'constructor')
({configurable:true, enumerable:false, value:function f() {}, 


More information about the es-discuss mailing list