> On Jan 7, 2017, at 4:45 AM, Alexander Jones <a...@weej.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Igor
>
> With `super()` and closure binding of the anonymous class `constructor` (as
> with all class methods) you can basically solve your problem of constructor
> arguments appearing in the wrong place:
>
> ```
> this.add(
> new class extends ArrayView {
> constructor() { super("items", itemsModel); }
> populateItem(item) {
> item.add(new Checkbox("check", new PropertyModel(item.model,
> "done")));
> item.add(new Label("title", new PropertyModel(item.model,
> "title")));
> }
> }
> );
> ```
>
> I concede that spelling `constructor`, `super`, and the various soup of
> punctuation is a little less than ideal, but at the end of the day I think
> this is quite reasonable, don't you?
Yes, indeed. Thanks Alexander. I don't know why I didnt think of that myself.
It is a little soupy since it adds an extra line and four extra keywords, but
at least it allows this style of code.
Thanks again,
-Igor
>
> Cheers
>
> Alex
>
> On 6 January 2017 at 22:11, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
> <mailto:igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Given a simple class with an abstract method "populateItem"
>
> class ArrayView extends Container {
> constructor(id, model) {
> super(id);
> this.model = model;
> }
>
> // methods referencing "populateItem" omitted for clarity
> }
>
> the current anonymous instantiation syntax looks like this:
>
> this.add(new class extends ArrayView {
> populateItem(item) {
> item.add(new Checkbox("check", new PropertyModel(item.model,
> "done")));
> item.add(new Label("title", new PropertyModel(item.model, "title")));
> }
> }
> ("items", itemsModel)
> );
>
> The problem with this syntax is that it pushes the constructor
> parameters below the class body which I think causes two problems:
>
> When scanning code constructors often contain the piece of information
> that helps locate the anonymous class, which currently requires the
> developer to look back. This is especially problematic for anonymous
> classes with long class bodies.
>
> When writing code I usually think about the constructor first, so it
> seems it would be preferable to write it before moving onto working on
> the class body. This is also the reason why constructors are usually
> placed toward the top of named classes' source.
>
> A better syntax would move the constructor parameters between the
> super class name and the class body:
>
> this.add(new class extends ArrayView("items", itemsModel) {
> populateItem(item) {
> item.add(new Checkbox("check", new PropertyModel(item.model,
> "done")));
> item.add(new Label("title", new PropertyModel(item.model, "title")));
> }
> });
>
> If possible it would also be great to get rid of the "class extends"
> keywords for this usecase:
>
> this.add(new ArrayView("items", itemsModel) {
> populateItem(item) {
> item.add(new Checkbox("check", new PropertyModel(item.model,
> "done")));
> item.add(new Label("title", new PropertyModel(item.model, "title")));
> }
> });
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> -igor
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
