On 4/4/2013 12:47 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I would argue that the best name for the method is "add" while the
path/origin of it might be "Set#add". They are orthogonal in my
opinion, and "name" is much simpler to specify.
This would seem to argue against prepending "static". Also it
wouldn't make much sense to do that if we also didn't consider, for
example Date.parse, to be "static".
What about function that are defined like:
Date.myParse = function () {...}.
This may not be particularly any harder to formally specify than other
LHS forms (and the other are not necessarily all that easy). If you
have concrete ideas on how to actually write the specification using
concepts from the ES6 spec. methodologies, feel free to share...
This is why I avoided adding "static " to the name. It makes sense with
accessors to add "[gs]et " to the name but much less so for static. I
suppose that partially depends on the way that people end up using
statics though. In current usage, "static" functions attached to
constructors are generally done so for namespacing only. It's possible
we may see a rise in the use of |this| sensitive static functions such
as `Array.of` and `Array.from`, and for these the "staticness" of the
function actually matters. But since we rarely see that in current usage
I don't think we can make an assumption that it will change much in the
future.
Finally, a minor point is that you failed to mention GeneratorFunction
declarations and expressions, but the intent for those is pretty obvious.
Yeah, I forgot that they are separate; I'll add them to the wiki page.
But yeah, obviously they follow the behavior of
FunctionExpression/Declaration.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
