On 23 March 2012 08:42, Claus Reinke <[email protected]> wrote: > > - would it make sense to name the constructor after the class > (avoiding 'constructor' and 'new')? >
-1. I always considered this a bad choice of C++-derived class systems. It violates Don't-repeat-yourself, and thus is annoying e.g. when you rename things. It is less searchable and less readable locally, because you have to take the name of the surrounding class into account to decide what kind of declaration you are looking at. And it doesn't scale to anonymous classes, in case these ever become an option for ES. /Andreas
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
