On Mar 27, 2012, at 13:10, "David Herman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I recognize the C.prototype.constructor idiom already exists, but it's a weak
> idiom. I'm not crazy about the idea of strengthening a problematic but
> currently unreliable and rarely used idiom.
>
> Dave
Speaking as a dev, I would like this idiom to be stronger (i.e. be there by
default in a classy world). One use case that immediately springs to mind is
try { } catch (e) { switch(e.constructor) { } }, which we've used a couple
times in the absence of Mozilla-style exception guards.
Your concern about possibly not wanting to expose the constructor makes a lot
of sense, but perhaps we could leave .prototype.constructor configurable and
let people in such a situation explicitly delete it.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
