Constructors without new

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at
Wed Aug 7 09:35:55 PDT 2013

On Aug 7, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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
> 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.)

Actually, the algorithm in the current (Rev16) draft does not treat these as equivalent.  ArrayBuffer( ) will thrown according to the algorithm.

However, there is an issue in Rev16 in that the prose description in 15.13.5.still said that ArrayBuffer ( ) and new ArrayBuffer( ) are equivalent.  That's simply an editorial bug that has already been corrected in my working draft for Rev17.

A good example, of why I try to minimize redundant  prose descriptions and why reader should always use the algorithms as the primary definition.


> What exactly is the plan here?
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list