new instantiation design alternatives

Herby Vojčík herby at
Mon Sep 15 05:39:31 PDT 2014

This is probably not a constructive feedback, but thanks for changing 
super semantics in constructors, as it's fixing the new/super difference 
of previous design.


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> At the last TC39 meeting (
> <>
> and
> ) we agreed to a general direction to try for a new object instantiation
> design to replace @@create.
> Since then I have gotten feedback and had design discussions with a
> number of individuals. This has lead to a number of refinements of the
> core design and one remaining point where there are strong contrary
> positions. The point of contention is about whether or not a subclass
> construction ever implicitly calls its superclass constructor.
> summaries the main
> syntactic changes since the meeting and provides rationales them. These
> features are common to both alternates. this is a good place to start,
> after reading the meeting notes.
> I have prepared two longer Gists that outline the two alternatives
> designs, presents design rationales, and provides usage examples for a
> number of likely use cases. Note that there is more commonalities then
> differences among the two alternatives. the syntactic choices and
> semantics of [[Construct]] are the same for both.
> These two Gist have parallel construction for easy comparison. I suggest
> approaching this is by first readying through one of the Gists and then
> doing a side by side read through of the alternative to see the
> differences in the designs and usage.
> with implicit super
> construct if no local allocation
> explicit super
> construct required if no local allocation
> I appreciate it if major constructive feedback on any of these documents
> were made via Gist comments.
> Allen
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list