On Oct 3, 2011, at 11:43 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 12:26, Waldemar Horwat <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that the choice seems to be between doing potentially future-hostile >> classes (where we'd bemoan the water under the bridge when trying to solve >> 2-6) and omitting classes altogether, C.A.R. Hoare's advice (as quoted by >> Bill Frantz) to defer classes would be the wiser thing to do. The standard >> is not a place for poorly understood features. > > I agree and that is why I'm arguing for the even simpler classes proposal. > > By not providing syntax we are continuing to encourage a million > incompatible "class" libraries.
Waldemar is concerned that minimal classes now will prevent adding const instance variable declarations later, I think. Possibly also shape guarantees (if not served by 'const class' now). Waldemar, is that right? If so we are at an impasse. To get past it, we would need to agree on declarative syntax and semantics preventing use before initialization. We can try to do that again, see if anyone has changed minds. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
