On Jun 12, 2011, at 2:22 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > 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 ?
Could you show Function.prototype.extend again, and say how it solves the super-construct and super-method-call problems? /be > > Thanks > -- > Irakli Gozalishvili > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ > Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France > > 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] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
