Sorry I'm late to this party. On Mar 20, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > [ ... snip ] > class Animal { > > constructor(name){ > > this.name = name; > > } > > move(meters){ > > alert(this.name + " moved " + meters + "m."); > > } > > } > > > Russ, > > I'm trying to write up some supporting examples, but ran into a snag > regarding "static" properties. eg > > function Foo( stuff ) { > this.stuff = stuff || ""; > } > > Foo.prototype.getStuff = function() { > return this.stuff; > }; > > Foo.Bar = function() { > return new Foo("bar"); > }; > > > How would I make Foo.Bar ? > > In my opinion, because it is a point of contention, there should be no > special support for statics. I agree. Modules also help to make them more-or-less moot. > It would be written exactly as you have it above, or you could do > > Foo.{ > Bar() { > return new Foo("bar"); > } > //potentially more here > }; > > I will reiterate the goal here of a *safety syntax*. Right now, my goal is to > just get some agreement on a class syntax where the future options are open > in case we can't find something better. I would still be happy to use my > minimal proposed class syntax because it gets past the hard part and nails > the 80% of code that's annoying. Some support for statics could be added > later if agreed upon but I'd hate to see it stop classes from happening. > > - Russ > > > > Rick > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
