On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Russell Leggett wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >>> 1. I think its easier to explain - it will actually result in a >>> constructor on the prototype. >>> 2. The actual constructor function and the .constructor property >>> really should always be in sync - this helps with that. >>> 3. "new" doesn't have those benefits - people might expect to be >>> able to call .new() like in ruby. >>> 4. "new" conflicts with the new <object> proposal. >>> >>> There are some minor practical considerations on the "constructor" side, >> and aesthetic considerations on the "new" side. Instead of squaring off >> now, can we just agree to leave if off the table temporarily? >> > > Agreed, table it. > > > We have to make a decision or a spec. can't be written. There needs to at > least be a stake in the ground. it looks to me like that stake is > "constructor" > Yes, I interpreted it as constructor for now, and we can argue it later. > > Allen > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
