Object.mixin/Object.assing with multiple args
dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com
Wed May 22 18:26:23 PDT 2013
OK. Sorry, you still haven't convinced me yet.
Could someone from the committee explain me the real reasons please? If I
see them, I'm OK with having only one source. If there are good reasons, I
think we should use multiple sources with all advantages, which includes
also reflecting current libs APIs.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov <
> dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't get it. Could you show an example of how it's potentially
>> can be used, I'm curious. If there is no practical need for this -- of
>> course it matters whether it worth or not.
>> Since the spec is not approve yet, and particularly that section on
>> assign and mixin, it's exactly now a good time to (re)consider it. Since if
>> no mixins will be available for class-syntax (as mentioned by Allen
>> recently), I at least want to see Object.mixin(...) accepting several
>> arguments in order to pass to a class' extends expression.
> You're missing the point. The *possible* third argument is only a
> *possibility*. The one target, one source design is the _only_ form that
> will get committee consensus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss