Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Except in the current design there is no special reinterpretation of the constructor method body semantics. The constructor method definition simply provides body of the constructor function and semantically is exactly the same as the body that is provided in a Function definition. See http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-runtime-semantics-classdefinitionevaluation <http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-runtime-semantics-classdefinitionevaluation> and in particular step 10 which calls http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-runtime-semantics-definemethod <http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-runtime-semantics-definemethod> which just calls http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-functioncreate <http://people.mozilla.org/%7Ejorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-functioncreate> . No special processing of the body anywhere along that path. The only special treatment prior to step 10 is about choosing a default constructor body if a constructor method isn't provided in the class declaration.
Fair point, things have changed. Still, here are some other bits of magic that make constructor(){} as ClassElement not just a method definition. Here's another:
* 'constructor' is not enumerable but methods are.
It is an alternative syntax for providing a the body of a function, but it has no unique semantics. That seems significant to me.
Not so much to me, and one could argue for static [@@new](){} sugar similarly.
The most important thing here (I agree with Andreas R.) is -- if possible -- avoiding uninitialized object observability.
/be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
