That makes sense.
One thing to look out for: Not loosing one’s mind due to subtle syntactic
differences between modules, class declarations and object initializers (and
possibly cascades). There needs to be consistency. But (implicit) rules such as
“colon => separator is comma” and “equals => separator is semicolon” should
make that OK.
On Mar 17, 2012, at 8:14 , Brendan Eich wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
--
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
