Also I just realized that I have not mentioned it but I meant that new Point(0, 0) would do following:
var point = Object.create(Point); var value = Function.apply.call(point, arguments); return typeof(value) === 'undefined' ? point : value; Regards -- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 17:44 , Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 2012-04-03 at 13:47 , Axel Rauschmayer wrote: > > > I think you should make the distinction between [[Call]] and [[Construct]]. > > > > > > > > > You can do it via (this insntanceof ..) already and dispatch to call / > construct if you want. > > > But both would be great to have for objects. It’s probably best to create > > importable names. > > > > Importable names won't allow shorter than function form though, so I think > just () {} is better. > > > Then making the `new` operator available to object exemplars becomes indeed > > simple. For example: > > > > // Root object exemplar > > import Construct from somewhere; > > let ObjectExemplar = { > > [Construct](...args) { > > let inst = Object.create(this); > > let result = inst.init(...args); > > return (result === undefined ? inst : result); > > } > > } > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 2012, at 22:00 , Irakli Gozalishvili wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Please excuse me if this will sound too crazy, but this idea have being > > > growing in my head for so long that I can't stop myself from proposing it > > > here. I have experimented many different ways of doing inheritance in JS: > > > > > > 1. Starting with a simple sugar that reduces machinery involved, similar > > > to backbone.js > > > https://github.com/Gozala/extendables > > > > > > 2. Finishing with class free prototypal inheritance > > > https://github.com/Gozala/selfish > > > > > > I have to say that experience with selfish turned out very interesting, > > > it made things so much simpler no special forms, no twisted relations > > > between constructors and objects, just a plain objects. Most of these > > > things are not obvious until you start using them, but the fact that > > > exemplars (classes) are no different from regular objects in the system > > > makes things much simpler. > > > > > > That being said I have also came to realize that in most of the cases > > > functions as exemplars would be a better feet than objects. As a matter > > > of fact if objects could be made callable I think it could could have > > > replaced most of the things that classes are targeting in more elegant > > > way. > > > > > > Here is more or less what I have in mind: https://gist.github.com/2295048 > > > > > > // class > > > var Point = { > > > (x, y) { > > > this.getX = { () { return x; } } > > > this.getY = { () { return x; } } > > > } > > > > > > toString() { > > > return '<' + this.getX() + ',' + this.getY() + '>'; > > > } > > > } > > > > > > var a = new Point(0, 0) > > > var b = new Point(1, 7) > > > > > > // Examples from class proposal > > > > > > // extend is like create with a diff that second arg is an object. > > > var SkinnedMesh = Object.extend(THREE.Mesh, { > > > (geometry, materials) { > > > // call the superclass constructor > > > THREE.Mesh.call(this, geometry, materials); > > > > > > // initialize instance properties > > > this.identityMatrix = new THREE.Matrix4(); > > > this.bones = []; > > > this.boneMatrices = []; > > > > > > // ... > > > } > > > > > > update (camera) { > > > THREE.Mesh.update.call(this); > > > } > > > }); > > > > > > Also such callable objects provide shorter alternative to current > > > function syntax: > > > // shorter than function > > > > > > numbers. > > > filter({ (x) { return x % 2 } }). > > > // maybe single expression can be even shorter like arrow functions ? > > > map({ (x) x * x }). > > > forEach({ (x) { this.add(x) } }, that); > > > > > > > > > Also this would allow interesting APIs similar to those found in clojure: > > > > > > // maps / sets similar like in clojure ? > > > var map = WeakMap(), key = {}, value = {}; > > > > > > map.set(key, value); > > > map(key) // => value > > > key(map) // => value > > > > > > > > > And maybe built-ins could have it for doing `[]` work: > > > > > > > > > // Maybe even non-magical replacement for `[]` > > > > > > [ 'a', 'b', 'c' ](1) // => 'b' > > > ({ a: 1, b: 2 })('a') // => 1 > > > ('b')({ a: 1, b: 2 }) // => 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > -- > > > Irakli Gozalishvili > > > Web: http://www.jeditoolkit.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > home: rauschma.de (http://rauschma.de)twitter: twitter.com/rauschma > > (http://twitter.com/rauschma) > > blog: 2ality.com (http://2ality.com) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
