Class data member declarations proposal idea

Logan Smyth loganfsmyth at
Thu Aug 9 23:08:47 UTC 2018

It might help if you could clarify how your proposal diverges from the
class fields proposal that you linked to. From purely a syntactic view,
ignoring the type annotations, I don't see an obvious difference, so it is
hard to tell what your expectations are. You state "I have shown the idea
of declaring subobject default value declarations.", but I can't actually
tell what that means or what you intended to show. Is
defaults = {
  a: 1,
  b: 2
meant to create a property called `defaults`, or do something else?

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:47 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at>

> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 14:34, Ranando King <kingmph at> wrote:
>> Did you see any similarity with my proposal-object-members
>> <>? It doesn't have
>> type annotation either. However, that's probably something best left to a
>> separate proposal since it would affect private and public members alike.
> This looks excellent.
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list