`class` is already not just syntactic sugar, so that notion isn't correct, and shouldn't be maintained.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Ranando King <[email protected]> wrote: > I've written up a new draft proposal based on my own work with ES5 & ES6 > compatible classes with fields. That can be found [here]( > https://github.com/rdking/proposal-object-members). I'm already aware of > the class-members proposal, but I think it breaks far to many things and > doesn't do anything to maintain the notion that "`class` is just syntactic > sugar". > > This proposal is specifically based on the code [here](https://github.com/ > rdking/Class.js/tree/master/es6c). I've also got a [repl.it]( > https://repl.it/@arkain/Classjs-Compact-Syntax-ES6) that shows the same > code running. > > The idea behind the proposal is that instead of injecting a lot of new > logic into how `class` works, let's allow `class` to remain syntactic > sugar, and put that extra ability into object declarations instead. Then > simply allow `class` to do the same with it's own prototypes. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
