On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Herby Vojčík wrote: > >> That brings the question: what about static block? I think it should have >> exactly same rules as the basic class block (sans possibility having its >> own nested static block). That is, what about that const? Is data allowed >> in static (const-only or let as well) but not in class; or is it possible >> in class as well (which means, it defines shared data thing in prototype)? >> > > What about statics? Maybe. > > What about const? Later. > > Protected? Later. > > Bell #47, Whistle #99: Later. > > If we keep piling features and bells and whistles on, classes will never > happen. I am 100% sure of this. > > We could have had minimal classes in ES6 last summer, but for > unfalsifiable future-proofing concerns about use-before-init re: const and > guards. We may still reach consensus on *minimal* classes. Never on maximal > classes. Speaking of which - curious to see your take on the "safety syntax" thread. - Russ > > > /be > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
