@@new

[Brendan Eich]

Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Brendan Eich
>
>> >  See Allen's latest followup on this -- is it a static error to have both constructor and the static [Symbol.new]() method?
>
> IMO it shouldn't be, because it'd be weird to get an error for `constructor` + `static [Symbol.new]()`, but to not get an error for `constructor` + `static [Symbol["n" + "ew"]]()` and similar.

Silly me -- strike that "static" before "error" -- it still could be a 
strict error, but see latest meeting minutes where MarkM changed his 
position (cited below).

> Another way of guiding the decision: I don't quite recall where the spec landed `{ x: 1, ["x"]: 2 }`, but we should probably be consistent with that.

*Mark Miller:* I am ok with removing the constraint that duplicate 
dynamic object properties throw (in strict mode) with the caveat that we 
also remove the same constraint for duplicate static properties.

from 
http://esdiscuss.org/notes/2014-06-06#rest-properties-and-spread-properties-sebastian-markb-ge-.

Still, in this case we have a ClassElement special form, 
constructor(){}. This distinction adds a choice not present in the 
ObjectLiteral case: to have a strict (dynamic) error on duplicate 
Symbol.new-equivalent name.

/be