On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looking at Allen's collection classes, it's clear that our maximally > minimal > > classes aren't sufficient for describing a large subset of the classes we > > might want to create. As a general goal, I think that a complete class > > syntax should be able to express all of the external interface of the > class, > > for all except a small set of edge cases. > > A complete class syntax, yes. Maximally-minimal classes aren't > attempting to be a complete class syntax. They're trying to be a > maximally minimal class syntax, which is friendly to future extension > to make it more complete. That way we can defer the debates about > future functionality and syntax while still getting some work done > now. > As Tab says, you won't really find anyone here that thinks Max-Min isn't missing features. The point is that there have been dozens of full-featured proposals just like yours which haven't come to consensus. Max-min was an attempt to take every controversial feature out while still remaining useful and leaving the door open for the future. It seems to me that so far this is the closest to consensus. Trying to go the other direction is probably just going in circles. Maybe I'm wrong. I know that the biggest thing holding it back is that for a couple holdouts it is too minimal and possibly competes with some of the work being done for object literal extensions. Personally, I think that if anything should be done to fix Max-min it should be in the private name area. - Russ
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
