Rather than making "extends null" alone a runtime error at class evaluation time, is there a reason not to instead, make only a reference to "super" in the constructor of a class that extends null be a runtime error at class evaluation time?
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Mark S. Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> Interesting. I have never seen this pattern and don’t see what it could >>> be good for. Thus, a dynamic error at class definition time sounds good to >>> me. >>> >> >> The purpose would be defining a class whose instances don't have >> Object.prototype on their prototype chain. If "extends null" doesn't work, >> then I think you'd have to do something like this to achieve the same? >> >> function NullBase() {} >> NullBase.prototype = Object.create(null); >> >> class C extends NullBase {} >> >> > That still wouldn't work at runtime because of the super semantics of C as > a derived class. Instead > > > class C {....} > > C.prototype.__proto__ = null; > > Yes, it is ugly, but it is an odd case, so still obeys Kay's dictum: > > > "Simple things should be simple. Complex things should be possible" > --Alan Kay > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
