Allen Wirfs-Brock

The only methods excluded from Array.prototype of those that change the length of the array: concat, pop, push, shift, splice, unshift all methods are available on all typed arrays

right concat isn't a mutator, but it was also excluded because it would be hard to reliably precompute the fixed size of the result typed array object. Another feature point...

Looks good, I might also test for 'sort' just because it is one of the more interesting methods and requires more implementation work than just moving over the Array.prototype method

and mention that they sukpport most of the Array.prototype methods

The # prefix doesn't mean "static". If is something completely different, a non-property "field" that can only be referenced from within the body of the class that defines it. What...

or something like what is shown in https://github.com/erights/Orthogonal-Classes/issues/16#issuecomment-287908053

what we have in mind is using actual lexical declarations within the nested class scope: ```js class Foo { function bar() {}; //a function declaration, lexically scope to class body....

also see https://github.com/erights/Orthogonal-Classes/issues/3 I also think there are several issues with the concept of constructor placement/visibility as described by @erights in the proposal. I made the following table to clarify...

I'm not sure what hazard you are concerned about. I thought the main concern was that a reference to an instance of Foo could be restricted such that it did...

It seems to me that we already have a perfectly fine syntax for class scoped declarations -- it is exactly `function`, '`let`, `const`, `class` (and unfortunately `var`) declarations. I believe...