From: Kevin Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
> I'd imagine that you'd re-spec [[Call]] for class constructors to basically > do `this[Symbol.call](...args)` instead of just throw. It would therefore > only have an effect within class constructors. Is that still weird? At least it's explicable, but it's still pretty weird I think. I mean, we don't specify [[Construct]] by saying that it does `new this.prototype.constructor(...args)` or similar. The asymmetry is jarring. And it's weird to have this symbol with such a generic name that doesn't work for anything except class syntax. I'd expect symbols to be for re-usable protocols... that's fuzzy intuition though, I admit, and might be contradicted by existing examples. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
