I was more thinking of something like:
@interface
class Name {
}
@mixin
class Name {
}
...
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Isiah
Meadows
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 9:32 AM
To: doodad-js Admin <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Interfaces
They could be. I didn't initially include it, but that does logically follow
from it.
-----
Isiah Meadows
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:05 AM, doodad-js Admin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
I like it. Are interfaces extendable? I mean something like...
interface CustomerSummary {
// ...
}
interface CustomerDetails extends CustomerSummary {
// ...
}
Claude Petit
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Isiah
Meadows
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 1:23 AM
To: doodad-js Admin <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Subject: Re: Interfaces
I'm thinking, maybe if someone could combine this with a decent mixin proposal,
this would work well.
Here's my idea for interface checking:
Note: this != mixin. I probably could've worded this better...
```js
// These are all checked via duck typing.
interface IteratorResult {
// Properties
done;
value;
}
interface Iterator {
// required method
next();
// optional methods
throw?();
return?();
}
interface Iterable {
// Dynamic method name, checked via `typeof obj[Symbol.iterator] ===
"function"`
[Symbol.iterator]();
}
// Interfaces may be anonymous and are themselves // new primitives const
dynamic = interface {
foo();
};
assert(typeof dynamic === "interface");
// Check if something implements an interface // Done via duck type checking
via `[[Has]]` for // properties and `[[Get]]` for methods if (value implements
dynamic) {
// ...
}
// Assert a class matches one or more interfaces class Foo implements Iterable,
Iterator {
// ...
}
```
It's intentionally a subset of TypeScript's interfaces, mod new runtime
behavior, and it specifically works structurally to work with existing duck
typing mechanisms. (Browsers can already optimize this fairly well.)
-----
Isiah Meadows
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:42 PM, doodad-js Admin <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
> Hi, I’m starting a new thread from the bottom message.
>
>
>
> I did a great work to provide OOP in Javascript, but nobody seems to
> care, and some even given me bad intentions. But I continue to persist...
>
>
>
> My framework already provides a solution on the user space. All that
> remains is to port it to a more lower level, in combination to
> existing proposals like public class fields, private fields, class and
> property decorators, ...
> To just name a few.
>
>
>
> (I’m French, so I’m sorry if my English is not accurate)
>
>
>
> From: Jordan Harband [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ]
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:25 PM
> To: T.J. Crowder <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> >
> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Short Comparing proposal
>
>
>
> It seems like a far more useful proposal (although much larger in
> scope) would be some concept of interface comparison, and then you
> could see if `object` matches "an interface that has an `a` and `b`
> property", but also if `object` is "arraylike", or "iterable", or a
> "thenable", etc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
