On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/19/12 2:36 AM, David Bruant wrote: >>> I suppose the same goes for ES6 Map. >> >> As Tab suggested, a Map subclass could certainly work > > How close are "subclasses" to not being vaporware (both in spec and > implementation terms)? Speccing things in terms of vaporware makes them > pretty hard to implement in actual implementations... Doesn't mean we > shouldn't do it, but I'm a bit wary of it, in general.
Subclasses aren't anything new - we're just referring to the standard prototype-based subclassing. ~TJ
