Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
private x,y; is syntactically tricky inside an object initializer. The previous
consensus was to use
private { x, y }
I don't like object literal syntax, it takes over like a weed. If
classes are worth adding with higher-level (but still desugarable)
semantics per yard of syntax, as I think Kevin's blog post in part
argues for, then I continue to believe they'll need bespoke body-syntax
-- neither object literal nor function (code).
Definitely we want sugar for
const x = Name.create(), y = Name.create();
I don't see why, given the right class body syntax, that sugar could not be
private x, y;
The old-ES4/JS2 idea of using {} for arbitrary distribution of a keyword
over a list of declarators, as an alternative to C++ labeled sections,
is not obviously needed. My fork of jashkenas's gist tried it out but
I'm cool on it now.
/be
For example here:
https://gist.github.com/1332193 (Brendan’s class proposal)
https://gist.github.com/1336846 (my class proposal)
On Mar 16, 2012, at 22:24 , Domenic Denicola wrote:
Yes, this looks pretty solid, although I can't remember seeing it anywhere.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
