Herby Vojčík wrote:
With .{...} around, I wonder, do we really need special class construct
with its own structure? I think with a little set of changes, minimal,
well-blended solution would be possible:
1. Allow <| for function declarations.
SuperFun <|
function fun(...) {
...
}
2. Allow .{} for function declarations.
function gz(compress=false, blob) {
...
}.{
GZIP := 2, // := is const member as in actual proposal
DEFLATE := 4
}
Forgot this:
2.5 Allow super everywhere it has meaning.
In any constructor function Fun, allow an expression "super(x, y)"
acting like Fun.[[Prototype]].call(this, x, y), as if using the original
binding of Function.prototype.call.
In any method extending object p, allow an expression "super.member(z,
w)" acting like p.[[Prototype]].member.call(this, z, w), as if using the
original binding of Function.prototype.call.
3. Define keyword 'class' to do exact same thing as function (declare
function or return expression; setting up empty prototype and
constructor property in it), with only one difference - it's completion
value will be the prototype, not the constructor.
Animal <|
class Fox (...) {
// instance initialzation
}.{
// instance-shared behaviour (aka prototype)
}
Fox.{
// optionally some static ones
}
Class-private is the only hard thing. Well, I'd be able to live without
it. Just put a private keyword before the class declaration. No big
issue, if you want to reuse later, you will, if not, you will not; just
don't export it; it will be local to the scope in which class was
defined, it may be enough.
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
