On Jul 19, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> Actually, I'm trying to explore going the other direction. What would it
> take to allow object literals to use the same syntax as class declarations
> for the things that they have in common.
But why? Even if an object literal is method heavy, the commas are a
longstanding separator (with a trailing one allowed, finally per ES5, de-facto
in all but IE during the ES3 period).
>> Method bodies are braced and, like function declarations in ES1-5, do not
>> require gratuitous ; or , termination or separation from following source
>> elements.
>
> but you are not also arguing for eliminating the requirement for a , after a
> method property in an object. Right?
>
> let c = {
> m1() {...}
> m2() {...}
> get g() {...}
> set g() {...}
> m3() {...}
> }
No, I've been clear -- I keep saying class body is *not* object literal. This
cuts both ways!
> If this is correct, I don't see why you are making the argument for one
> construct and not the other.
Because they are different constructs.
Different semantics should have different syntax. Method shorthand is not a
strong enough attractor to pull these together.
>> This means data property declarations in a class *do* need some kind of
>> termination, and the obvious candidate for parallelism with function
>> declarations is the semicolon.
>>
>> From this, I concede that data property declarations in a class should not
>> try to look like property assignments (key: value) in an object literal.
>
> Object literals and class declarations are very similar in some respects and
> it seems likely that developers will be refactoring one to the other fairly
> routinely.
Maybe, but they won't be putting commas after method bodies (including
constructor) in classes they write fresh.
> The more different the common elements are the most difficult that
> refactoring will be. It also increase, the leaning burden to have different
> ways to express the same concept that must be used in different contexts.
Sorry, I think making commas optional after methods in object literals is a
non-goal. I'm not even sure it is unambiguous with the various object literal
extensions.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
