I’ve never seen it written quite this way. #1 is indeed the best argument
against object literal (I thought we were calling them object initializers?)
syntax for class declarations.
I wonder, though, if comma-separation can’t be learned, especially if trailing
commas can be added (which is legal in ES5):
let obj = {
foo: 123,
method() {
}
bar: "abc",
}
Manageable and the exact analog of semicolon separation.
On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:04 , Brendan Eich wrote:
> Erik Arvidsson wrote:
>> This is why, if we ever agree on class syntax we might want to consider being
>> opinionated and prevent such usage.
>
> I'll see and raise: class syntax should use a restrictive body plan that's
> not an object literal specifically so it can't have data properties where it
> has prototype methods and accessors. You might argue for an object literal
> with method definition shorthand and get/set accessors, and just ban data
> properties (p:42, e.g.) but:
>
> 1. People will expect them and we can't add them in the future without adding
> the footgun or diverging from object literals in how data properties bind
> instance properties, while methods and accessors bind prototype properties.
>
> 2. The comma separation is a pain, and unnecessary with bespoke class syntax,
> so usability says we should avoid it.
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
--
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
