proposal: Object Members

Jordan Harband ljharb at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 20:30:07 UTC 2018


`class` is already not just syntactic sugar, so that notion isn't correct,
and shouldn't be maintained.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Ranando King <kingmph at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've written up a new draft proposal based on my own work with ES5 & ES6
> compatible classes with fields. That can be found [here](
> https://github.com/rdking/proposal-object-members). I'm already aware of
> the class-members proposal, but I think it breaks far to many things and
> doesn't do anything to maintain the notion that "`class` is just syntactic
> sugar".
>
> This proposal is specifically based on the code [here](https://github.com/
> rdking/Class.js/tree/master/es6c). I've also got a [repl.it](
> https://repl.it/@arkain/Classjs-Compact-Syntax-ES6) that shows the same
> code running.
>
> The idea behind the proposal is that instead of injecting a lot of new
> logic into how `class` works, let's allow `class` to remain syntactic
> sugar, and put that extra ability into object declarations instead. Then
> simply allow `class` to do the same with it's own prototypes.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180723/489a87c2/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list