>
> It is also something that my proposed version of the class operator could
> do, because it always creates a function, and could desugar to the same
> semantics as the current function style.
>
>
> This may seem like a nit-pick, but I think it's not: any variant that sits
> at statement context in the grammar and has the form 'class C {...}' or
> 'class D extends B {...}' is not an expression using an operator. It's a
> class declaration.
>Yes, I guess it would not be an operator at that point, but I had thought that much the same way that function can be used as a declaration and an expression, class could be used as a declaration and an operator. Perhaps this is confusing or impossible. Seemed doable to me. > 3. class hoisting, where all members of the class are available would > require a formal class body instead of an expression, and probably some > restrictions on the class body definition. I don't think any form of class > proposed so far would allow this. > > > Why not? Some proposals have either explicitly required (not allowed) > this, or at least implied it. > Yes, sorry. I should have said "To my limited knowledge, ...". I had not seen that as part of any proposal, but I haven't read them all or as thoroughly as I could. > Many proposals mirror function declarations vs. expressions by supporting > all of class declarations (hoisted in some proposals as functions are, for > the reason given above), named class expresssions (class name is usable in > the class body but not head), and anonymous class expressions. > > /be >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
