proposal-class-access-expressions

proposal-class-access-expressions copied to clipboard

Bumps [ini](https://github.com/isaacs/ini) from 1.3.5 to 1.3.7. Commits c74c8af 1.3.7 024b8b5 update deps, add linting 032fbaf Use Object.create(null) to avoid default object property hazards 2da9039 1.3.6 cfea636 better git push script,...

dependabot[bot]

what is the actual motivation for this proposal?

3

As I understand it, there is no downside to giving a class a name. There is nothing you can do with an unnamed class that you cannot do with a...

michaelficarra

What about `static.foo` instead of `class.foo`?

3

It seems `static.foo` may be a little bit easier to understand because it just map the `static foo` declaration.

hax

Current behavior is a major bug/discrepancy in the specification. In general, terrible precedents have become a core part of JS language design culture

1

While I'm not opposed to this particular proposal because it's useful to have syntactic sugar for `this.constructor.staticMethod()` (as `class.staticMethod()`) in instance methods. Isn't the current behavior in static methods a...

celmaun

Is it possible to support this syntax? ```js class C { static f() { ... } g() { const { f } = class; // equivalent to `const f =...

whzx5byb