On Mar 24, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> It's the right trade-off, and not just to get appropriately minimal classes
> into ES6 -- the computed method case is often part of a generative framework
> anyway, so won't obviously fit into any general, declarative syntax.
Since we've gone with the decision not to hoist the initialization of class
declarations, I think it makes it easier to conceive of allowing computation in
the initialization of a class. Nadav's request is reasonable. Again, I'm fine
with deferring it, but it's also fine to discuss it, if only for thinking a
step or two down the road.
> At least, this is my gut reaction -- but it would be helpful to see a
> concrete example in the wild (not contrived) and look deeper.
One simple example that comes to mind: reusing a hand-picked set of generic
methods from e.g. Array.prototype or String.prototype:
class Vector {
/* various methods... */
forEach = Array.prototype.forEach; // just an example, don't bikeshed me
/* more methods ... */
}
Then again, this example is also in the space of what traits would address,
which I think are worth revisiting post-ES6. You could imagine a trait
definition like:
trait Sequence {
forEach: Array.prototype.forEach,
/* etc... */
}
class Vector with Sequence {
/* various methods... */
}
I could imagine keeping the declarative syntax of classes pretty spare by
beefing up the expressiveness of traits. But this requires a lot more design
work. Again, this is all outside the scope of ES6. Maximal minimalism FTW!
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
