On 2008-02-20, at 17:20 EST, Brendan Eich wrote: > On Feb 20, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Kris Zyp wrote: > >> Is there any way this compatibility can be mitigated? I am assuming >> there is >> no conceivable way to actually replace methods ad-hoc with arbitrary >> functions and retain sane typing and class expectations. > > I'm not sure why you assume this. Latest RI downloaded from http:// > ecmascript.org/ :
I thought the question was about annotating class fixtures? But your reply made me think: So, built-ins cannot be classes, because they require backward compatibility? Or maybe I missed that there are sealed/class versions of built-ins (in some other namespace?) with just a thin veneer of prototype around them for back compatibility? _______________________________________________ Es4-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
