> > This "object literal"styleis not congruent to the prototype being a
> > special instance (as in ES3 and 4 built-ins, with Date.prototype
> > having value NaN, et c) . The above code style is clear and easy to
> > read. You have the constructor, then the prototype.
> >
> > It would be nice to have a prototype block, like:
> >
> > class A {
> >
> > init : void = function init()
> > prototype {
> >
> > }
>
> This is something proposed ages ago by Waldemar Horwat (then at
> Netscape) for ES4 -- any time you have
>
> prototype function m1(...) {...}
> prototype function m2(...) {...}
> prototype function m3(...) {...}
>
> in some ES4 drafts waldemar wrote, you could instead say
>
> prototype {
> function m1(...) {...}
> function m2(...) {...}
> function m3(...) {...}
> }
>
> Waldemar's proposal allowed this for any kind of "attribute"
> qualifying a definition, including a namespace IIRC.
>
That's right.
> I'll bring this up at the next meeting, since you are quite right
> that the current builtins in the reference implementation are chatty.
>
ActionScript will have something like this soon in its program
configuration feature. It is described here:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=proposals:program_configuration
The meaning is slightly different, but maybe not incompatible. In the
above proposal, a configuration expression turns on or off a block of
code, including any embedded definitions. If non-configuration
attributes where used on a block they could be applied to relevant
definitions. Perhaps it should be an error to put definitions in a block
whose attributes don't apply.
Jd
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
