On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 00:33, Bram Moolenaar <b...@moolenaar.net> wrote:
> > One thing I'm not yet sure about is the declaration. Currently it works > like this: > > this.name: string > this.gender: Gender > > Notice that there is no "var" keyword. It's not needed to recognize the > declaration. I can't think of a good reason to add "var" here, other > than that a declaration would be expected to always have "var". Well, I > don't have that expectation. This following currently defines a field and is, without context, indistinguishable from any other assignment. Is that intended? this.name = "Somebody" As methods still require :def I think it would be more consistent to not special case field declarations and still require the :var. For class members most languages use the "static" keyword. It's a bit > of a weird word, but I suppose most people are used to it, and I can't > find a popular language that has a good alternative. > > If we leave out "var" for object members, I suppose we should also leave > it out for class members. We then get: > > static oneClassMember: number > static twoClassMember: string > > I think this looks fine. Any objections? > It seems from the documentation that static fields can be referenced as bare identifiers? This feels a bit unexpected to me given that instance fields are always qualified. Regards, Doug -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/CAJ1uvoD%2BS7WmQiORM2_agzWWjy-72p%2B07QhEcWmmg1TZJ-YrOw%40mail.gmail.com.
