But why do we need new keyword?
Actually, I can accept a new keyword in case if reasons will really be
serious. But in this case -- `extends' may fit quite nice.
P.S.: In general, it's just funny picture. Somehow ES4 made nice classes
with nice syntax. Why (Why Y NO?) now we invent some scary things such
as const Point = Point <| {}.constructor.{}.prototype{}. Just... why?
What has happened with syntax idea even from ES4?
Dmitry.
On 16.11.2011 23:31, Rick Waldron wrote:
As stated previously[1], my support for "begets" as pure win is
unwavering.
Rick
[1] https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-October/017758.html
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 16.11.2011 23:12, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
One thing that all of these discussions are missing is the
hoisting
property of function and any possible future classes. If we
use "let
Point = ..." we lose all hoisting and the order of your
declarations
starts to matter and we will end up in the C mess where forward
references do not work.
No matter, we may rewrite it with `var':
// parent object
var point = {x: 10, y: 20};
// child object
var point3D extends point {
z: 30
}
// a class
class Point3D extends Point {
constructor (x, y, z) { ... }
}
It seems interesting for me, since we define both -- child classes
and child objects with the same syntactic construction; only `var'
and `class' keywords change.
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
