> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 00:09, Logan Smyth <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
