But we could have super(foo) as syntactic sugar for super.constructor(foo),
right? Not that I think it matters terribly...
On Oct 30, 2011, at 20:51 , Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> On Oct 30, 2011, at 3:36 AM, David Bruant wrote:
>
>>> ...
>> I wonder if the "only one semicolon" obsession is really worth it. Consider:
>> -----
>> const className = superClass <| function(/*constructor parameters */) {
>> //constructor body
>> super.constructor(/*arguments to super constructor */);
>> this.{
>> //per instance property definitions
>> };
>> };
>>
>> className.prototype.{
>> // prototype properties
>> };
>>
>> // and if really necessary:
>> /*className.{
>> // "constructor properties"
>> };*/
>> -----
>>
>> As far as I'm concern, this is declarative enough:
>> 1) <| provides the proper "super" (why the ".constructor"?) within the
>> constructor body
>
> In general, it is necessary to know at runtime what property name you are
> doing a super look up for. the name can be either implicit or explicit but it
> has to come from somewhere and generally JS functions don't always have
> intrinsic names. Also there are some issues relating to super references to
> getter/setter properties that make the explicit name nice. Also, sometimes
> the method you want to super invoke is the name same name as the current
> method (for example, see
> https://github.com/allenwb/ESnext-experiments/blob/master/ST80collections-exp1.js#L419
> ). We may be able to work out the details so we can leave out the property
> name if it is the same as the current method name, but for now I always
> explicitly include the name.
>
>
>
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
