On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Jake Verbaten wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
> > We can debate whether Default Constructors should do a:
> > if (super.constructor isnt Object) super.constructor()
> > but that is a more basic question about whether constructors (default or
> > otherwise) should always do implicit super calls.
>
> We should debate. What do you think?
>
> Personally I cannot think of any examples where this functionality would be
> unwanted.
>
> This debate will probably depend on the counter examples where invoking the
> super constructor implicitly is unwanted behavior.
>
> An argument for doing this is that you can use initialize or some other name
> for constructor like functions that don't implicitly make super calls.
In general, you don't want a constructor to automatically do
super.constructor(...args) because a "sub-exemplar" may use a different
argument signature from its "super-exemplar".
For this reason, my first reaction was: If we don't (and we shouldn't) do an
implicit super.constructor(...args) call for things like:
{constructor() {} }
then we also should not do it for the [[DefaultConstructor]] created for { }.
However, I think I'm wavering. The programmer hasn't actually written any
code so there isn't a "different argument signature" to worry about. so, may it
would be ok to do a not to Object super.constructor call.
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
