Discuss
  • Proposal: Concise class property definition

Proposal: Concise class property definition

# Sean Eagan (14 years ago)

The basic idea is to integrate concise object literal extensions [1] into classes with trait composition [2]. Here's an initial attempt at the resulting syntax:

class A extends B {

// instance data property constructor parameters constructor( notAProperty, .plainProperty, ! .nonConfigurable, ~ .nonEnumerable, .nonWritable := 1) { m(notAProperty) },

// non-configurable, non-writable, non-enumerable, prototype method ! m(notAProperty) {this.booleanProperty = !!notAProperty},

// non-configurable, on prototype, non-identifier ! "a a": "a a",

// non-writable, on prototype b:= function() {return "b"},

// non-enumerable, static, same name as a prototype property static ~b : "b",

// static accessor property static !~get c() { return bar(); }, static !~set c(value) { baz(value); }

}

[1] strawman:concise_object_literal_extensions [2] strawman:classes_with_trait_composition

# Allen Wirfs-Brock (14 years ago)

On May 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Sean Eagan wrote:

The basic idea is to integrate concise object literal extensions [1] into classes with trait composition [2]. Here's an initial attempt at the resulting syntax:

I've update [1] and integrated with some related proposals to make the integrated proposal tree starting at strawman:basic_object_literal_extensions

We should use that as the starting point for the class integration.

# Sean Eagan (14 years ago)

I sent out a separate proposal for just the concise instance initialisation part which is relevant to any constructor, not just classes. I'll work on the classes integration separately.