Interfaces

[Isiah Meadows]

They could be. I didn't initially include it, but that does logically
follow from it.

-----

Isiah Meadows
me at isiahmeadows.com

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:05 AM, doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like it. Are interfaces extendable? I mean something like...
>
> interface CustomerSummary {
>    // ...
> }
>
> interface CustomerDetails extends CustomerSummary {
>    // ...
> }
>
> Claude Petit
> doodadjs at gmail.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: impinball at gmail.com [mailto:impinball at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Isiah
> Meadows
> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:23 AM
> To: doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Interfaces
>
> I'm thinking, maybe if someone could combine this with a decent mixin
> proposal, this would work well.
>

> Here's my idea for interface checking:
>

Note: this != mixin. I probably could've worded this better...


>
> ```js
> // These are all checked via duck typing.
> interface IteratorResult {
>     // Properties
>     done;
>     value;
> }
>
> interface Iterator {
>     // required method
>     next();
>     // optional methods
>     throw?();
>     return?();
> }
>
> interface Iterable {
>     // Dynamic method name, checked via `typeof obj[Symbol.iterator] ===
> "function"`
>     [Symbol.iterator]();
> }
>
> // Interfaces may be anonymous and are themselves // new primitives const
> dynamic = interface {
>     foo();
> };
>
> assert(typeof dynamic === "interface");
>
> // Check if something implements an interface // Done via duck type
> checking via `[[Has]]` for // properties and `[[Get]]` for methods if
> (value implements dynamic) {
>     // ...
> }
>
> // Assert a class matches one or more interfaces class Foo implements
> Iterable, Iterator {
>     // ...
> }
> ```
>
> It's intentionally a subset of TypeScript's interfaces, mod new runtime
> behavior, and it specifically works structurally to work with existing duck
> typing mechanisms. (Browsers can already optimize this fairly well.)
> -----
>
> Isiah Meadows
> me at isiahmeadows.com
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 PM, doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi, I’m starting a new thread from the bottom message.
> >
> >
> >
> > I did a great work to provide OOP in Javascript, but nobody seems to
> > care, and some even given me bad intentions. But I continue to persist...
> >
> >
> >
> > My framework already provides a solution on the user space. All that
> > remains is to port it to a more lower level, in combination to
> > existing proposals like public class fields, private fields, class and
> property decorators, ...
> > To just name a few.
> >
> >
> >
> > (I’m French, so I’m sorry if my English is not accurate)
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jordan Harband [mailto:ljharb at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:25 PM
> > To: T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
> > Cc: es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > Subject: Re: Short Comparing proposal
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems like a far more useful proposal (although much larger in
> > scope) would be some concept of interface comparison, and then you
> > could see if `object` matches "an interface that has an `a` and `b`
> > property", but also if `object` is "arraylike", or "iterable", or a
> "thenable", etc.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170427/b4af6da8/attachment.html>