Kevin Smith wrote:
I like your new(){}/static(){} idea at a glance. Need to ruminate
(moo!) on it at length.
I can't give you a use case (it's just a felling of being a good design
thing), but I would like the classes be higher-level construct based on
low-level ones. If new()/static() gets in, it defines its own exclusive
semantics not possible to do by plain constructor function.
Maybe there should be possibility to define split-body plain constuctor
function, too (with semantics identical to class (or vice-versa)).
Bikeshedding:
function new Ctr (a) { constructor body } static (a,b) { static body }
(with static _required_ if new form is used; maybe "static throw" or
"static undefined" as shortcuts if one wants static behaviour to throw
(system-defined error with "[[Call]] behaviour not supported, this is
pure constuctor" meaning) or wants to have it empty; in that case they
should be there in class as well).
What does class do if you add new(){} but not static(){}? I presume it
[[Call]]s new(){} body...
Some details:
- Clearly super() would have to call the [[Construct]] behavior: new() {}.
- If there were a different number of formal parameters for the two,
what would MyClass.length be?
- What would MyClass.toString() return?
I haven't been able to think of any big problems yet...
kevin
Herby
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
