On Mar 21, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
>
...
> Yeah - that is the way I was leaning, partly because I like it, and partly
> because that was the behavior in <| for functions in the class pattern. I
> think it could help make it easier for people to fill the gaps in the minimal
> syntax. For example, many class libs have some mixin functionality. If mixin
> were added to a custom base class, then you could do:
>
> class Foo extends MyBase {
> ...
> }.mixin(enumerable);
>
There are likely issue with the above syntax. However, I can imagine someway
saying:
class Foo extends mixin(MyBase, enumerable) {
}
where mixin is defined as:
function mixin(directSuper, ...mixins) {
let effectiveSuper = class extends directSuper{ constructor(...args)
{return super.constructor(...args)}};
for (let m of mixins) Object.extend(effectiveSuper.proto,mixins);
//probably need some conflict resolution logic
return effectiveSuper
}
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
