classes and enumerability
bzbarsky at mit.edu
Thu Jan 29 14:00:35 PST 2015
On 1/29/15 4:54 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> To be completely clear, there's nothing that requires DOM to define its
> objects as using precisely the semantics of ES6 "classes"
Sure. There is nothing that requires the DOM to define its objects in
any particular way at all. As observed in actual implementations,
nothing even requires them to follow the ES spec in any way whatsoever.
At the same time, there seems to be some general agreement in principle
that Web IDL should generally look as much like ES6 classes as possible.
At least that's my impression.
> If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that you would
> *like* DOM "classes" to look similar to a normally defined ES6 class.
_I_ personally quite honestly don't care one whit whether they do. But
a number of other people have voiced such a desire, and I'm willing to
try to accommodate it. Especially if TC39 is willing to help and
actually coordinate things and all that. And if other implementors are
willing to actually do so as well.
> That is a reasonable desire (and I would love to continue discussing
> it), but it's not something that's squarely in TC39's wheelhouse (since
> DOM classes aren't defined using ECMAScript class syntax, which is all
> that this decision directly affects).
Yes, that's why I suggested that someone who was involved post to
public-script-coord, which is the right place for that sort of thing.
More information about the es-discuss