If I’m reading the latest spec draft correctly then

```js
class C extends null {
}
```

produces the following result:

1. Constructor kind: derived
2. Prototype of `C`: `Function.prototype`
3. Prototype of `C.prototype`: `null`

Neither #2 nor #3 seems very useful:

* #2 means that a super-constructor call is allowed but throws an exception, because `Function.prototype` is not constructible. The default constructor will perform a super-constructor call. As a result, you are forced to explicitly return an object from the constructor if you don’t want an exception to be thrown.

* #3 means that the constructor doesn’t even create objects whose prototype is `null`, but objects whose prototype is an object whose prototype is `null`.

Therefore my question: is this useful for anything? Can’t `extends null` be turned into something useful? Even treating `extends null` as equivalent to a missing `extends` clause seems preferable.

Thanks!

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de
rauschma.de



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150214/9b681efe/attachment.html>

If I’m reading the latest spec draft correctly then

```js
class C extends null {
}
```

produces the following result:

1. Constructor kind: derived
2. Prototype of `C`: `Function.prototype`
3. Prototype of `C.prototype`: `null`

Neither #2 nor #3 seems very useful:

* \#2 means that a super-constructor call is allowed but throws an exception, because `Function.prototype` is not constructible. The default constructor will perform a super-constructor call. As a result, you are forced to explicitly return an object from the constructor if you don’t want an exception to be thrown.

* \#3 means that the constructor doesn’t even create objects whose prototype is `null`, but objects whose prototype is an object whose prototype is `null`.

Therefore my question: is this useful for anything? Can’t `extends null` be turned into something useful? Even treating `extends null` as equivalent to a missing `extends` clause seems preferable.

If I’m reading the latest spec draft correctly then

```js
class C extends null {
}
```

produces the following result:

1. Constructor kind: derived
2. Prototype of `C`: `Function.prototype`
3. Prototype of `C.prototype`: `null`

Neither #2 nor #3 seems very useful:

* \#2 means that a super-constructor call is allowed but throws an exception, because `Function.prototype` is not constructible. The default constructor will perform a super-constructor call. As a result, you are forced to explicitly return an object from the constructor if you don’t want an exception to be thrown.

* \#3 means that the constructor doesn’t even create objects whose prototype is `null`, but objects whose prototype is an object whose prototype is `null`.

Therefore my question: is this useful for anything? Can’t `extends null` be turned into something useful? Even treating `extends null` as equivalent to a missing `extends` clause seems preferable.

Thanks!

Axel