On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> (On the other hand, I do think that it probably was a serious mistakes to > make class bindings mutable.) > Will be part of the "const class" proposal from < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:classes#const> to be revived at some point for a future ES. Such const classes also have much in common with classes in your <positive-adjective>Script proposal, and probably should have more. Indeed, I think we should unbundle much of the classes from <positive-adjective>Script into const classes. > /Andreas > > > > On 4 March 2015 at 13:23, Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I guess we are just going to disagree here. Double bindings with >> mutability still seem clearly bad. I can't make sense of the rationale >> that classes can cope with every external binding being mutable except >> for, somehow, their own name, and we're doing users a favor by >> "protecting" them from "tampering" for just this one binding in this >> one place. >> >> -j >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
