On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_extension_literal_class_pattern > > I like the Class Definition Pattern and tried to make it more flexible: > > const className = superClass <| function(/*constructor parameters */) { > //constructor body > super.constructor(/*arguments to super constructor */); > this.{ > //per instance property definitions > }; > }.withPrototype({ > //instance properties defined on prototype > }).withProperties({ > //class (ie, constructor) properties > }); > > - Approach: Define two methods Function.prototype.withPrototype() and > Function.prototype.withProperties(). The latter task could also be performed > via the object extension operator – I used a method for reasons of symmetry. > Both methods return "this". > > - Advantages compared to using the object extension operator: > - Can omit the class property definition (without having to append > ".constructor"). > - Both “clauses” can be swapped.
It's hard to object. The problem is that this requries a library (whether standardized into built-ins or not), and it is imperative as all get-out. I still think class syntax has a place, but it has to be super-sweet, no verbose syntax gaffes or near-misses or brushes-with-greatness-that-landed-on-merely-good. We ain't there yet. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
