Hi, Is there anything else (other than starting this thread) I can do to make committee consider `Function.prototype.extend` as an alternative to a proposed class sugar ?
Thanks -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France (http://goo.gl/maps/3CHu) On Tuesday, 2011-05-24 at 24:48 , Brendan Eich wrote: > On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Bob Nystrom wrote: > > > One thing I'd like the proposal to support, which it doesn't currently, is > > initializers on instance property declarations. Then you could do: > > > > > class C { > > > public _list = []; > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With that, you'll correctly get a new _list on each instance of C when it's > > created. > But (we've argued, I forget where so repeating it here), this looks like [] > is evaluated once when the class declaration is evaluated. That is not what > you intend. > > Then at some point (in the last thread on this) I remembered parameter > default values, but they cover only missing parameters to the constructor. > This _list member could be private. But it has to be initialized in a body > that executes once per instantiation, which is not the class body -- it's the > constructor body. > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
