proposal: Object Members

[Jordan Harband]

As you've all pointed out, it's not "just sugar" in the sense that you
couldn't do it in ES5; it's more that parallel syntax and API were created
for the new functionality in ES6. Thanks for providing clear code examples
of how one might extend builtins without `class`.

@kai: yes, extending builtins makes sense, in that it's an important part
of ES6. Invoking "the web" doesn't negate *any* of the features of the
language, new or old. Separately, not every web use involves any JSON
serialization in either direction.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:15 AM, T.J. Crowder <
tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Michael Theriot
> <michael.lee.theriot at gmail.com> wrote:
> > `Reflect.construct` allows subclasses to obtain internal slots without
> > `super()` / class syntax.
>
> Indeed, Darien pointed that out as well (and if you two hadn't, I would
> have. :-)
>
> > This is the first I have heard `class` is anything but sugar.
>
> The accurate statement would be that `class` lets you do things you
> couldn't do in ES5. But so does `Reflect.construct`. I believe it was
> important to the "no `new`" crowd that a non-`class` mechanism existed for
> creating objects using Error and Array as prototypes.
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180724/bd46a939/attachment-0001.html>