On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The point is that you don't *have* to pass a fresh object literal to each
constructor call.
/be
I know Brendan, my point is that I can predict devs will do every time
we'll see
Thanks for other reply, I thought
On Sep 18, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
The point is that you don't *have* to pass a fresh object literal to each
constructor call.
/be
I know Brendan, my point is that I can predict devs will do
I know it's the same, for this reason I said it was shimmable
New syntax would be fine as long as minifiers won't break everything so ...
as long as minifiers are compatible, but this is an extra story I guess,
also it's not fundamental it's just nicer addiction since many libs are
using single
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Jonathan Dumaine
jonathan.duma...@dumstruck.com wrote:
You could go
all the way and make classes a very strict subset of the language: throw an
error if the user tries to set a property of a class instance that has
already been declared private
[...]
I would
On Sep 18, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
I know it's the same, for this reason I said it was shimmable
New syntax would be fine as long as minifiers won't break everything so ...
as long as minifiers are compatible, but this is an extra story I guess, also
it's not
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Jonathan Dumaine
jonathan.duma...@dumstruck.com wrote:
Hello Mark,
I think mistake is a harsh word.
My apologies if it came across as harsh. I did not intend harshness, quite
that opposite. That's why I mentioned that the committee almost made the
same
6 matches
Mail list logo
