> That and the syntax.

The syntax snippet you posted is identical to what is already supported by
the class fields proposal alongside Flowtype. You can see this with Babel:
https://babeljs.io/repl/#?babili=false&browsers=&build=&builtIns=false&spec=false&loose=true&code_lz=MYGwhgzhAEAa0FMAeAXBA7AJjAmtA3gFDTTAD26EKATgK7ApnUAUAlAdBLQA4IvsBfYtEwIAZmFogUMALwFhJMAC5oARgA0i6ACNVAJmFCSSaKoCS6NAHM-0eQGZhYALIIUACzKY2HIQKA&debug=false&forceAllTransforms=false&shippedProposals=false&circleciRepo=&evaluate=false&fileSize=false&sourceType=module&lineWrap=true&presets=react%2Cstage-0&prettier=false&targets=&version=6.26.0&envVersion=1.6.2

It would help to clarify what is different about how you envision fields to
behave.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 2:59 AM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.li...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 00:09, Logan Smyth <loganfsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It might help if you could clarify how your proposal diverges from the
>> class fields proposal that you linked to. From purely a syntactic view,
>> ignoring the type annotations, I don't see an obvious difference, so it is
>> hard to tell what your expectations are. You state "I have shown the
>> idea of declaring subobject default value declarations.", but I can't
>> actually tell what that means or what you intended to show. Is
>> ```
>> defaults = {
>>   a: 1,
>>   b: 2
>> }
>> ```
>> meant to create a property called `defaults`, or do something else?
>>
>
> That and the syntax.
>
> Aaron
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Reply via email to