Good-bye constructor functions?

Brandon Benvie brandon at
Mon Jan 7 15:36:33 PST 2013

Although I already see flaws with that idea, since I just recently made use
of to reinitialize an instance to
defaults. So nevermind that idea...

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Brandon Benvie <brandon at>wrote:

> I also agree with the sentiment. Splitting allocation from initialization
> helps to clarify the two separate roles that constructors have
> traditionally filled, and how a class could/should diverge from that. The
> class itself is the thing that should allocate the new object, the
> constructor initializes newly minted objects. Perhaps a middle ground with
> the backward compatibility issue that awb mentions would be that calling a
> class is always treated as constructing it, in that it always allocates a
> new object if it's not receiving a newly created one from a subclass that's
> in the process of initializing.
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
>> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>> Even if we think we should discourage direct calls to class objects (I
>>> think I'm now in that camp)
>> (Why so?)
>> /be
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list