On Nov 3, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> I noticed the absence of setter's, getter's. Would this be valid syntax?
Yes, that's already in object literal syntax.
My gist is a fork of Jeremy's, he didn't add 'em so I didn't either. At this
point they are context, assumed. They're in ES5!
/be
>
> set health(value) {
> if (value < 0) {
> throw new Error("Health must be non-negative.");
> }
> @health = value;
> }
>
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2011, at 12:17 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What is "super-intuitive" about running 'class C' up against an arbitrary
>> expression, which is then evaluated and *copied* (details fuzzy here) as the
>> class prototype?
>>
>> Arguments about feelings and intuition are not that helpful. Saying why you
>> need to construct a class that way, where no such object copying primitive
>> exists in JS, would be more helpful. IOW, what's the use-case?
>>
>> /be
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Matthew J Tretter wrote:
>>
>>> So to clarify, is the dynamic super issue the whole reason that Jeremy's
>>> dynamic construction of classes is considered not doable? Because it seems
>>> to me that super may not be worth that trade off. Besides, Python's super
>>> implementation requires the hardcoding of the class and that doesn't cause
>>> much of a stink. If something similar would give us this super-intuitive
>>> syntax and the ability to build classes from arbitrary object literals, it
>>> seems like not a big loss.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
