Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Wed Jun 18 10:32:23 PDT 2014

On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:

> I think the most concerning part of this proposal is that `constructor(...)` gets replaced by `static [Symbol.new](...)` with strange semantics regarding `this`. If we instead had @@new call constructor by default I think most of these concerns go away but then again we are back to two initialization functions and the possibility to observe an object that never went through its constructor.

This is also one of my bigger concerns.  I think the rewriting and reinterpretation of what the use wrote as a a constructor may be very problematic.   For example,how does this get translated:

class extends C {
  constructor() {
       super.foo();  //apply the inherited foo method to the new object  

If we had a design that didn't require the rewriting of the user provided constructor I'd be much more comfortable.  Thinking...more latter...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140618/2536fed0/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list