Brendan argued that if you restrict in class declarations what you can do
syntactically then basing their syntax on object literals will confuse people.
I agree. Based on that and on a recent proposal for a non-braces private
syntax, I’ve updated my class declaration proposal:
AFAICT this is a small variation on what was discussed last summer. What am I
missing?
On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Brendan argued that if you restrict in class declarations what you can do
syntactically then basing their syntax on object literals will confuse
Nothing, the changes are minor: It’s just not based on object literal syntax,
any more (= instead of : and ; instead of ,). And instead of private { foo },
there is now private foo;
On Mar 21, 2012, at 11:28 , Alex Russell wrote:
AFAICT this is a small variation on what was discussed last
Yeah, they are pushing it hardly this way. It seems inevitable...
I am willing to accept it, but I'd like to have a clear mapping from
object initializer components into class body components - if it is
there, I don't care about syntax (the main concern for me is, that if
certain things are
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:42 , Herby Vojčík wrote:
Yeah, they are pushing it hardly this way. It seems inevitable...
I am willing to accept it, but I'd like to have a clear mapping from object
initializer components into class body components - if it is there, I don't
care about syntax (the
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
On Mar 21, 2012, at 12:42 , Herby Vojčík wrote:
Yeah, they are pushing it hardly this way. It seems inevitable...
I am willing to accept it, but I'd like to have a clear mapping from
object initializer components into class body components - if it is
there, I don't
“I think it should have exactly same rules as the basic class block” – I
agree 100%.
But then you are negating yourself - if you allow it for static but not for
prototype, then they are not 100% same... if I can add shared data in static,
I should be able to add it to prototype - or vice
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That brings the question: what about static block? I think it should
have exactly same rules as the basic class block (sans possibility
having its own nested static block). That is, what about that const?
Is data allowed in static (const-only or let as well) but not in
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.org wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That brings the question: what about static block? I think it should have
exactly same rules as the basic class block (sans possibility having its
own nested static block). That is, what about that
Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That brings the question: what about static block? I think it should
have exactly same rules as the basic class block (sans possibility
having its own nested static block). That is, what about that const?
Is data allowed in static (const-only or let as
https://gist.github.com/1336846
Makes sense. I removed the static block. I only faintly remember David’s
proposal, but I think it’s almost like his “minimal classes” now – IMO a good
thing.
On Mar 21, 2012, at 18:49 , Brendan Eich wrote:
Herby Vojčík wrote:
That brings the question: what
11 matches
Mail list logo
