On 13 June 2014 12:33, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> One important detail:
>
> Jason proposes:
>     new C(...args) => C[Symbol.new](...args)
>
> Allen proposes:
>    new C(...args) =>  C.apply(C[Symbol.create](), args)
>
> I prefer Jason's transformation for the following reason: imagine a proxy
> that wants to implement e.g. a flyweight pattern (i.e. it wants to pool or
> cache objects, rather than constructing a fresh object for each call to
> |new|). This is trivial to do with Jason's transformation, because the proxy
> is in control of *both* object allocation and initialization. With Allen's
> transformation, we need to jump through some hoops if the cached object
> returned by Symbol.create depends on args (which is common for flyweights),
> as they only get passed in after Symbol.create returns.

I strongly prefer Allen's version. Frankly, I'm already quite
concerned about the proliferation of extension hooks for fringe use
cases in ES6. Allen's version is a net win in language complexity,
while the other is not.

/Andreas

I strongly prefer Allen's version. Frankly, I'm already quite
concerned about the proliferation of extension hooks for fringe use
cases in ES6. Allen's version is a net win in language complexity,
while the other is not.