On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > Thats exact port of proposal that Jeremy wrote here: > https://gist.github.com/1329619 > I could write add examples from the classes proposal if that wolud help: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes > > Maybe, but I think that you'd be beating a dead horse. > Class syntax is wanted to avoid some method calling boilerplate that's more > verbose, arguably easier to get wrong, and harder to analyze and optimize. > That's it. > Hence, "classes as sugar". If you find existing JS sweet enough, you won't > want classes.
If I understand Iraki's proposal, then, no we don't find JS sweet enough. Object.extend() does not exist. Similar but not identical functions are widely used. We would like a standard form built-in to the runtime. Or is this already in the standard but not implemented? jjb _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
