---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ranando King <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM Subject: Re: proposal: Object Members To: <[email protected]>
You've made that argument before. Exactly what is it in ES6 that you **can** do with `class` that you cannot do without class? I'd like some clarification on this. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 3:30 PM Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: > `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
