On Jun 29, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> That's all neat in a kind of desugaring ftw, nerdcore way, but tl;dr -- >> users don't care and they want to write new C and have it just work (mostly; >> granted some crack the code, for a few good and bad purposes). > > Note that I am arguing from the perspective of a language that only has PaCs, > versus a language that only has constructor functions. If you don’t, then we > don’t disagree.
That was not clear, because we keep coming back to JS as it is. That's where I want to land, so arguing about what-if's and might-have-been's is not my cup of tea. > You argue that constructor functions are more intuitive at the user level (to > *all* people) and that PaCs wouldn’t “just work” I never wrote anything like either of those things, certainly not "to *all* people". Indeed I was the one pointing out that your universals did not apply to all people. Last concrete disagreement we had was over new C() vs. C() in the current language being notably different from new C() vs. C.constructor() in the alternate-reality language with prototypes as classes. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
