On Mar 17, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently, <| sets the [[prototype]] field of the RHS object, > and -if the RHS is a function literal- also specifies the [[prototype]] > field of objects generated from it. I suggest to remove that special > case for function RHS. > > Ultimately, this is my suggestion as well. And for class construction, bite > the bullet and come up with a declarative class syntax.
Agreed. Come hell or high water, we need that class syntax to come through. I don't know if I can bear the mocking from the JS naysayers when ES6 comes out with <| as a crutch for classes because we can't agree on something. Can we at least start by agreeing that something is better than nothing? Coffeescript classes are incredibly minimal, maps to JS cleanly, and has yet to result in a bunch of coffeescript class abstraction libraries. It also leaves the door open to potential additions in the future. Let's at least start by committing to have them. Maybe for everyone to feel comfortable, we need a simple proposal that we can call the "safety syntax" - something that we know can grow, that we would all probably like to see have more features, but that we can fall back on if something better don't happen. We can do it! - Russ > > kevin > _______________________________________________ > 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
