David Bruant wrote:
Because max-min classes are inching towards consensus, I suggest the
that appropriate way to subclass the built-in constructors will be
via |class extends|. eg
class MyArray extends Array {
someMyArrayProtoMethod () {...}
constructor (tag) {
super();
this.tag=tag
}
}
If that's the case, then that's perfect!
It suffers from the same issue than <| which is that it's
syntax-based, so minimum cost is an ES6->ES5 compiler
But that is why subclassing the DOM via __proto__ has already dug in as
a de-facto standard:
zepto.js: return isObject(value) && value.__proto__ == Object.prototype
zepto.js: // to the array. Note that `__proto__` is not supported on
Internet
zepto.js: dom.__proto__ = arguments.callee.prototype
and why IE faces pressure to support __proto__, including setting for
DOM objects.
New syntax may some day clean all this up but the short path wins and
it'll be hard to displace. Let's be realistic. I agree we should,
assuming classes make it, support DOM subclassing. That is good but it
won't relieve DOM implementors from supporting __proto__.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
