On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rick, what you wrote has _nothing_ to do with inheritance, right? So why
> should "classes" methods be part of a for/in of an instance, which is not
> what you wrote, again?
>
Sometimes I find you incredibly frustrating to communicate with. You asked
me to give an example of "expected to be enumerable" and I did so by
providing an example in the form that I made my original argument for
revisiting the decision to make concise method definitions non-enumerable.
Specifying concise method definitions to be enumerable: true in all cases
is consistent with defining a method on a prototype object today:
function C() {}
C.prototype.method = function() {};
for (var p in C.prototype) {console.log(p)}
> method
Refactor #1:
function C() {}
C.prototype = {
constructor: C,
method() {}
};
for (var p in C.prototype) {console.log(p)}
> method
Refactor #2:
class C {
method() {}
}
for (var p in C.prototype) {console.log(p)}
> method
Now that I've described as clearly as I possibly can, I hope the point of
making concise method definitions—regardless of which syntactic body form
they appear in—produce an enumerable: true property is clear to you and
that my answer has sufficiently met your need.
Rick
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
