Fwd: proposal: Object Members
kingmph at gmail.com
Mon Jul 23 21:05:05 UTC 2018
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ranando King <kingmph at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: proposal: Object Members
To: <ljharb at gmail.com>
You've made that argument before. Exactly what is it in ES6 that you
**can** do with `class` that you cannot do without class? I'd like some
clarification on this.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:30 PM Jordan Harband <ljharb at gmail.com> wrote:
> `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
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss