On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> I think the most concerning part of this proposal is that `constructor(...)`
> gets replaced by `static [Symbol.new](...)` with strange semantics regarding
> `this`. If we instead had @@new call constructor by default I think most of
> these concerns go away but then again we are back to two initialization
> functions and the possibility to observe an object that never went through
> its constructor.
>
>
This is also one of my bigger concerns. I think the rewriting and
reinterpretation of what the use wrote as a a constructor may be very
problematic. For example,how does this get translated:
class extends C {
constructor() {
super();
super.foo(); //apply the inherited foo method to the new object
}
}
If we had a design that didn't require the rewriting of the user provided
constructor I'd be much more comfortable. Thinking...more latter...
Allen_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
