Do you want mixin syntax in JS, and if so, which semantics? In the prototype chain means super works.
-
-
Wouldn’t that not be Mixins but in fact Interfaces?
-
mixins would have default implementations. but also, no bikeshedding yet!
-
Hmmm sounds like Interfaces would be more genericly useful then & we don’t need Mixins for that. Count me as “don’t need” I guess.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hey! I started working on a sketch of a proposal and a sweet.js prototype. Would love to talk about it!
-
Aren't decorators a form of mixins?
-
only in the same way that cows are a kind of food :P
-
Every mixin can be a decorator, with a slightly different relationship to the author's class due to the position on the proto chain.
-
I'd argue that most of the time the super calls from author's class should delegate to the mixin, not the other way around.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
that looks like an interface … not sure what a mixin is anyways … something like ruby modules?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is basically the protocols proposal no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'd want this, but as an interface with runtime checking for correctness.
I don't really believe there is a need for mixins, per seThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.