Mark S. Miller

This syntax is declarative, so it should result in something with declarative semantics, in the sense of obeying an [eternal invariant rather than a momentary invariant](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2011-May/014150.html). If the properties are...

Sure. If we had a choice about what this means I would take on that argument. We don't.

Sure. This is a valid question.

The other consistency we need to pay attention to is between declarative class properties and declarative private fields. Obviously there are some necessary differences between them. But we should avoid...

Although I can see a few reasons why the case for non-configurable static properties is weaker, I still think that they should be non-configurable. Btw, on terminology, I try to...

Configurable. It follows from orthogonality. On May 28, 2017 4:39 AM, "Wesley Overdijk" wrote: > What's the verdict on this? > > — > You are receiving this because you...

@allenwb wrote: > The prototype property of class constructors is configurable: false, writable: false because that was the precedent established by the built-ins. You meant configurable: false, writable: true, right?

To me, the issue hinges on orthogonality. In the Orthogonal Classes framework, placement (class, prototype, instance) is orthogonal from visibility and type. If we wish to preserve this as a...

> Are you saying that given the current direction of class syntax, you are not in favor of "public" field declarations? No, I am saying: * I expect that the...

yes. One invoked with no arguments, so `arguments` would have a zero length. On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Kevin Gibbons [email protected] wrote: > As I understand it,...