But your usage won't. You'll just have to change the decorator once.
-
-
I'm happy to help in any way I can, wherever :) just let me know
-
This use case sounds pretty valid. Wanna file a bug at https://github.com/littledan/proposal-unified-class-features/issues … to track removal of the unnecessary check?
-
Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you're asking me to post. That foo=Class => class X{ } should validly return X for
@foo class{} ? -
Well, that still wouldn't work--compatibility with existing decorators (on the decorator implementer side) isn't a goal. Should it be?
-
I'm suggesting, we could remove the check that the class is the subclass of the other class, but still leave it based on the finisher.
-
This is probably the most minimal thing we can do.
-
Yehuda's been incredibly kind and helpful with me offline. It's clear what I'm asking for isn't possible.
-
I think we could make the pattern you want work as an escape valve but the returned class wouldn't get statics and proto (fine for your use)
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
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.