On 18 February 2014 10:43, Yehuda Katz <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at annevk.nl> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:50 PM, C. Scott Ananian
>> <ecmascript at cscott.net> wrote:
>> > Since both Chrome and FIrefox have plans to support Promises, feel
>> > free to suggest any changes to `es6-shim` which would improve
>> > compatibility.  It looks like that at the moment the `es6-shim`
>> > implementation is more spec-compliant than either of the shipping
>> > implementations?  In particular, we support subclasses.
>>
>> It will take a long time before browsers support subclassing in
>> general as far as I can tell.
>
> I don't know where you're getting this from. @@create is the way classes and
> subclassing work in ES6, and any browser that wants to implement class
> syntax will need to deal with it.
>
> It may not be at the top of anyone's February 2014 hit-list, but I don't get
> any sense that classes are low priority for browser vendors either.

"Classes" consist of many parts. The @@create hook only is relevant to
enable subclassing of built-ins, and classes are useful without it. I
think what Anne is alluding to is that for implementations, @@create
probably is a pain to implement, and the part with the lowest
benefit/cost ratio, and thus not particularly high on anybody's
priority list.

/Andreas

"Classes" consist of many parts. The `@@create` hook only is relevant to enable subclassing of built-ins, and classes are useful without it. I
think what Anne is alluding to is that for implementations, `@@create` probably is a pain to implement, and the part with the lowest benefit/cost ratio, and thus not particularly high on anybody's priority list.