On 16.11.2011 23:53, Rick Waldron wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Dmitry Soshnikov
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But why do we need new keyword?
The discussion originated around how ugly <| is; an infix operator
keyword is easier to introduce into the language then an infix
operator made of symbols
Yes, I understand, but it doesn't answer the question -- why do we need
_additional_ keyword if to represent e.g. like this:
// declaration
var foo extends bar {
x: 100
}
// or via expression:
var foo = extends (debug ? bar { x: 100 } : baz { y : 200});
// or even
var foo = extends (debug ? bar : baz) {x : 100}
Anyway, forms with assignment are additions. The main part which I
notice is the declarative form. Once again, a good thing is that we have
the same syntactic form for defining/inhering simple objects and classes
(only var/let and class keywords change).
Dmitry.
Actually, I can accept a new keyword in case if reasons will
really be serious. But in this case -- `extends' may fit quite nice.
See:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-October/017775.html
I believe I saw this discussion; it doesn't explain also why we can't do
as I showed above (i.e. the declarative form with correct placemend of
`extends').
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?
By the way, the question is still open and I'll be glad to hear at least
small historical note on it.
P.S.: on <| -- speaking the truth I don't think it's ugly. Well, perhaps
maybe I use to Ruby's < inheritance op. Maybe it's just "pipe part" | of
it is ugly? :P
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
