My comments:
The grammar doesn't work:
{meta::prototype:17}
can be parsed as either a FieldName or as the meta::prototype production. To
make parsing unambiguous you can't allow "meta" to be included in AnyIdentifier
(or implement some other similar fix).
Class type discussion:
Do the properties in the literal need to have any correspondence to the members
of the class? As far as I can tell, they can be anything.
> If a property name in the record type that annotates the literal
What record type? You didn't say that the type has to be a record type here.
> If a literal field is annotated by |const| or |var| and the field is
> also named in the record type that annotates the literal then the type
> of the property is the type given in the record type, not the type
> implied by the initial value of the property (see below).
This paragraph is misplaced. Instead, fix the descriptions of const and var
below, as they lead to the wrong conclusion in this case without any hints that
they're overridden here.
What is the type of fields without a type annotation?
Waldemar
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
