Constructors without new

Rick Waldron waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Aug 7 07:43:43 PDT 2013


I'm guessing this is one of the things you needed to file a bug for?
Considering the last draft was published before the consensus (throw if not
"new"), I think this just need to be updated :)

Rick


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:

> Per last meeting I understood that constructors without new should
> probably not work to make subclassing easier (my understanding of that
> is still somewhat limited, I'll get there). I filed
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22808 on IDL to see if
> this was possible for the platform side of things.
>
> I now see that ArrayBuffer() is defined as doing the equivalent thing
> to new ArrayBuffer() in the ES6 draft, despite e.g. Chrome currently
> throwing for the former. (This is equivalent to today's story for e.g.
> XMLHttpRequest.)
>
> What exactly is the plan here?
>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130807/392e1a62/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list