On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Claude Pache wrote: > > I think that this bug is indeed a good reason to use `super(...arguments)` > instead of `return super(...arguments)`. > > However, I am slightly worried that, with the ES6 class syntax, the > `constructor` method looks like a regular method, but it behaves differently > w.r.t. inheritance. So, nonstandard uses of this method (wmay mysteriously > fail when used on a super-class. not really, how do you mean?
> > Therefore, it would be nice if `return expression` would be statically > forbidden in the `constructor` method when defined using the `class` syntax > (but a bare `return` is fine, which slightly complicates the grammar). > I don't think that restriction is really needed. Even within a class declaration, an explicit value return in a constructor body has a consistent meaning. This is really more an issue about appropriate use of super. Anybody using a super call should really understand the contract of the method they think they are calling. If what is being called via super is a constructor that (somethings?) returns a substitute value then the subclass constructor should know that and appropriate capture and use the value returned from the super call. Allen _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
