Remember where we started: absurdly clean ES6 class syntax. Requiring class definition class using property descriptors is a radical march in the other direction. I'm hardcore about syntactical tidiness. The reason I'm not freaking out about defineProperties is IMO because I can avoid it when I don't need it (which is about 99% of the time). Scott On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com> wrote: > I just made sure it worked, and it does. As for developers freaking out, I > really don't believe they would. If that was the case, > Object.defineProperties should be causing a global pandemic of whopperdeveloper freakouts ( > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhF6Kr4ITNQ). > > This would give us easy IE compat for the whole range of property types, > and I'm willing to all but guarantee developers will have a bigger freakout > about not having IE9 support than the prototype property of > document.register taking both a baked and unbaked object. > > Daniel J. Buchner > Product Manager, Developer Ecosystem > Mozilla Corporation > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Scott Miles <sjmiles@google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>wrote: >> >>> So you're directly setting the user-added methods on matched elements in >>> browsers that don't support proto, but what about accessors? >>> >> >> I believe those can be forwarded too, I just didn't bother in my fiddle. >> >> >>> Equipped with the unbaked prototype descriptor, in your upgrade phase, >>> you should be able to simply bake the node with: >>> Object.defineProperties(element, unbakedPrototypeDescriptor) - right? >>> >> >> Yes, but I believe developers would freak out if we required them to >> provide that type of descriptor (I would). >> >> <snip> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:02:17 UTC