New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unsure about ES6-super-construct=proposal.md #499

Closed
silkentrance opened this Issue Mar 26, 2016 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@silkentrance

silkentrance commented Mar 26, 2016

@allenwb

In https://github.com/tc39/ecma262/blob/master/workingdocs/ES6-super-construct%3Dproposal.md

it reads

  1. If a class definition does not include an explicit constructor definition, it defaults to:
    constructor(...args) {super(...args)}; if the class has a non-null extends clause. Otherwise it defaults > to: constructor() {};.
  • If you define a constructor body then you inherit both the constructor argument signature and body
    from your superclass.

Should this not rather read

  • If a class definition does not include an explicit constructor definition, then it will inherit both the constructor definition's argument signature and body
    from its superclass.

instead?

@silkentrance silkentrance changed the title from Possible typo in ES6-super-construct=proposal.md to Unsure about ES6-super-construct=proposal.md Mar 26, 2016

@bterlson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bterlson

bterlson Apr 19, 2016

Member

Working docs are super old. This should be correct in the main spec.

Member

bterlson commented Apr 19, 2016

Working docs are super old. This should be correct in the main spec.

@bterlson bterlson closed this Apr 19, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment