>> I like the idea of replacing the method name “constructor” with something
>> better, but “new” suggests instantiation *and* initialization to me. Is
>> “init” a possibility?
>
> Who said anything about "replacing"?
>
> If we are trying to match or sugar the prototypal pattern, then whatever the
> constructor name or keyword in the syntax, there must be for class C a
> back-link C.prototype.constructor.
I only meant replacing in as far as the method that was previously called
“constructor” is now called “new” in Allen’s example:
let Point = class {
x: 0, //not really needed unless defining an object exemplar
y: 0,
new(x,y) {
this.x = x;
this.y=y;
}
};
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
