On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Bob Nystrom wrote: > > (It may be that we should use constructor: or static: instead of class:.) > > > Those hurt more. I like class, it is shortest and closest to the keyword > that introduces the binding (in the named form, not for class expressions -- > but those want a connection back to the keyword too). > I like class too. > numAttacks = 0; > // declaring an instance property here mainly so you can document it. > could be > // useful later for guards or other annotations. > name; > > > Neat idea, although the assignment expression-statement appearance still > rankles. It looks like statements are allowed there, rather than declaration > forms of some sort. OTOH we are talking about properties, and declarations > are in ES.next lexical binding forms if you exclude object literal property > assignments from "declarations". > Yeah, I don't like things that look like bare assignment either. I know Mark isn't a fan, but I'd consider: new: var numAttacks = 0; var name; Or maybe let. I like leading with some keyword. > Not sure we need 'new' there given lack of private prototype properties in > the proposal. It's a bit verbose. Probably even if we add private prototype > properties we can let private: (in this idea you've pitched) default to > private instance. > That works for me. > No, don't <shrug>, <cheer>. I think what you've suggested here is strictly > better than (a) over-indenting one or another group of elements; (b) putting > "instance variable" declarations in magic syntax in the constructor body; > (c) festooning one's class declaration with repeated "static" prefix > keywords. > Yay! I think this wins, so far. This does suggest we rushed classes in > prematurely. > Well if we hadn't started covering the design space, we might not have gotten here ever, so I'd consider it time well spent. > I'm not saying anything more than that we should take our time and avoid > marrying the syntax in the proposal. We already have agreed that > private(this), private(foo), etc. is straw to burn up. > Yeah, we'll have to let this marinate a bit and see if we like it. If I can find some time, I'll try converting a non-trivial chunk of JS to use this syntax and see how it looks in practice. - bob
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
