Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
On May 24, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I think it is impossible to achieve Waldemar's goal with syntactic
sugar only. I also don't think that is reason enough to block ES6
classes. The requirements he wants cannot be expressed with ES5
semantics.
I'm
Couldn’t #1 (optionally) be handled via a proxy and #2+#3 via static analysis?
On May 24, 2012, at 22:50 , Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I think it is impossible to achieve Waldemar's goal with syntactic
sugar only. I also don't think that is reason enough to block ES6
classes. The requirements he
Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Couldn’t #1 (optionally) be handled via a proxy and #2+#3 via static
analysis?
Don't bring up proxies as a solution here! Direct proxies require target
objects, which are both irrelevant and unacceptably high overhead.
/be
On May 24, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
I think it is impossible to achieve Waldemar's goal with syntactic
sugar only. I also don't think that is reason enough to block ES6
classes. The requirements he wants cannot be expressed with ES5
semantics.
I'm actually rather this
Waldemar has put a pretty firm line in the sand regarding the need for a
higher integrity class construct. While I would love to start by agreeing
on max/min as a safety syntax and iterating forward, I appreciate the
desire for such a construct and would probably use it myself. It seems to
me that
Various thoughts:
- One key question: Does a property declaration have to look declarative in
order to be used declaratively? You are saying no.
- One could have `public foo = ...` as syntactic sugar for `this.foo = ...`.
But then the issue is whether `private` will ever be used in an
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
Various thoughts:
- One key question: Does a property declaration have to look declarative
in order to be used declaratively? You are saying no.
I think a more declarative form could be added later, this is not future
- One key question: Does a property declaration have to look declarative in
order to be used declaratively? You are saying no.
I think a more declarative form could be added later, this is not future
hostile to that.
It looks OK to me. However, adding another form later seems like a bad
I think it is impossible to achieve Waldemar's goal with syntactic
sugar only. I also don't think that is reason enough to block ES6
classes. The requirements he wants cannot be expressed with ES5
semantics.
The big issues Waldemar wanted were (as far as I remember):
1. Reading a non existent
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
- One key question: Does a property declaration have to look declarative
in order to be used declaratively? You are saying no.
I think a more declarative form could be added later, this is not future
hostile to that.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
[snip]
The problems with these is that no other dynamic language has these
kind of requirements. JS developers get by without them today. If we
designed a new language I think they would be nice features to have
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.com
(mailto:erik.arvids...@gmail.com) wrote:
[snip]
The problems with these is that no other dynamic language has these
kind of requirements. JS
12 matches
Mail list logo
