Rick Waldron wrote:
Similar discussion here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10692.html
Thank you, I wasn't here yet at the time.
From what I saw, it did a f(){}.prototype.{} or the like. It is the
basic idea, but confusing, the .prototype.{... is not good.
What I tried, is to make it so it can fulfill the primary "class" goal -
to create syntactic structure which people coming from class languages
can take and use without too much hassle, while at the same time doing
it so it is blended into the matter of the language well.
The twist of "class being a function equivalent returning the prototype"
could do it (when <| is allowed for declarations). This:
Animal <|
class Fox (...) {
// instance initialzation
}.{
// instance-shared behaviour (aka prototype)
}
Fox.{
// optionally some static ones
}
is pretty sleak; the class (sans statics which are not so criticial) is
defined in one piece of code with only a handful of rules, having only
one keyword (class) and rest is "syntax". It can be copied as-is by
beginniners and later understood that both <| and .{...} are in fact
nothing special.
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
