On Oct 1, 2011, at 2:16 , Juan Ignacio Dopazo wrote:
>> 1. Don't forget super getters/setters. Those are helpful.
>
> Not sure how often they would be used and whether they need to be part of a
> minimal feature set.
>
> Isn't it just a matter of referring to the property with "super"?
>
> class Pirate {
> get name() {
> return "Captn' " + super.name;
> }
> }
>
> Anyway, considering "super" a feature on its own that also works on regular
> objects is probably better.
>
>> 4. This should mean that there must be a way of setting class/static
>> properties
>
> Exactly, that’s one of the pieces.
>
>> 7. Encapsulation/privacy should be there somewhere.
>
> The private names proposal should work, as a first solution.
>
> That doesn't solve a very common use case: private subroutines for public
> methods.
Can you elaborate? Subroutines sound like nested functions.
> I think we need to get our creative mindset on and come up with a better name
> for "static" ASAP before this gets more complicated.
Done. Look here:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-September/016892.html
The section syntax is quite slick. And the name “class” works out nicely, in
several roles.
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
