Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
I would be glad to see some gallery of minimal approaches, with easy
diffing showing the same code implemented in them (I would also
propose minimal classes of my own). But it is reasonable only when
minimal classes in general would be accepted as the way to go.
Exactly! Otherwise, we’ll just go in circles.
Not hermeneutic spirals, just circles. Feels like the last year (we cut
off ES6 proposals, modulo exceptions/tweaks, last May; we had a big-ish
classes strawman synthesized from several prior proposals; we lost Bob
Nystrom to Dart).
Minimal classes had a good subset of TC39 supporting last summer in
Redmond, but we got hung up future-proofing use-before-initialization
for const and guards, if I recall correctly. The notes from the July
meeting should cover this.
If we can fight the future in the future and start small, we may yet
rescue classes.
I noted to Jeremy that even his classes gist snuck in a novelty or two
(the one I remember is class <expr> evaluating <expr> and copying it
somehow). We need to avoid novelty, while accepting that doing so is to
some extent future-hostile because present-friendly.
/be
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
home: rauschma.de <http://rauschma.de>
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma <http://twitter.com/rauschma>
blog: 2ality.com <http://2ality.com>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
