@wycats @BrendanEich @domenic @stefanpenner @mikemaccana but $.extend({}, class C{foo() {..}}) doesn't need to.
-
-
Replying to @mulambda
@mulambda@BrendanEich@domenic@stefanpenner@mikemaccana Others insisted on consistency, which forced my position.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@wycats@mulambda@BrendanEich@stefanpenner@mikemaccana I think consistency is preferable. object literal methods are more method than fn5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @domenic
@domenic@wycats@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana A foolish consistency. Again, enum methods in pre-ES6 "classy" code = bug not feature.3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich
@domenic@wycats@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana A proof: built-in class methods non-enum from the get-go. Yet want equiv self-hosting.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich
@BrendanEich@domenic@wycats@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana `class` is only syntax sugar? should behave the same. Adds to JS? diff +3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pixnbits
@pixnbits@BrendanEich@domenic@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana It's certainly not sugar for an object literal (obviously)1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats
for a Function constructor, correct? (to ensure
@wycats@BrendanEich@domenic@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana & I are all on same pg)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pixnbits
@pixnbits@BrendanEich@domenic@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana class is not just syntax sugar for a function constructor indeed1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats
@wycats@BrendanEich@domenic@mulambda@stefanpenner@mikemaccana no? oops things changed since my last spec read. Sorry, I'll butt out now2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@pixnbits @BrendanEich @domenic @mulambda @stefanpenner @mikemaccana I meant to say not *only*. There's a bunch of machinery.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.