There is this proposal for `static` blocks, which IMHO would fit
better with the intent:
https://github.com/littledan/proposal-class-static-block
Class initialization isn't the same as object initialization. Classes
are only initialized once, and parameters don't make sense, so it
doesn't make
It's an interesting idea and certainly some other languages (Java,
C#), have static constructors; others (C++) have lived without. I
don't recall the runtime details for C#, but certainly Java defers
calling static constructors until actually initializing the class,
which is indeed later than
Having a static constructor makes things more confusing, since now static
and instance constructors would need to be differentiated, and its value is
kind of unclear. Your example also doesn't make sense, since you're
accessing the static properties from the instance constructor using `this`,
The public one is the one I was thinking of when I said it shouldn't conflict.
(I don't see the private spec going anywhere to be honest with that syntax, but
if it does that would be interesting).
As for the conversion, yes that would be a good conversion for the first
example. In the second
The initial proposal for discussion is below:
https://github.com/sirisian/ecmascript-static-constructor
I don't believe this conflicts with other proposals yet, nor any future
proposals. Essentially it adds static members in a very compact syntax with
minimal grammar changes required.
What I
5 matches
Mail list logo
