https://gist.github.com/1336846
Makes sense. I removed the static block. I only faintly remember David’s proposal, but I think it’s almost like his “minimal classes” now – IMO a good thing. On Mar 21, 2012, at 18:49 , Brendan Eich 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. > > /be > -- 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
