| 10:40 | <Jack Works> | just hit this |
| 10:41 | <Jack Works> | why this is allowed, it's a footgun! |
| 16:24 | <ljharb> | what’s the footgun? |
| 16:24 | <ljharb> | other than that the log in the child setter says “get” instead of “set”, it seems fine |
| 16:40 | <danielrosenwasser> | I think Jack Works is referring to the fact that the lack of a get a accessor in Child doesn't defer to the Parent's get a |
| 17:58 | <ljharb> | ohhh |
| 17:59 | <ljharb> | because getters and setters are coalesced |
| 18:01 | <ljharb> | yeah it would have made sense to have a default getter in the presence of a setter-only be return super.whatever, and a default setter in the presence of a getter-only be return super.whatever = x |
| 18:01 | <ljharb> | but i assume that adding that in classes in ES6 may have violated some kind of inconsistency with pre-class objects using ES5 getters/setters? |
| 21:59 | <Ashley Claymore> | a default setter sounds like it wouldn't work quite as nicely, as usually a getter-only means read-only, and a set will fail. |
| 22:27 | <ljharb> | sure, that’d still be the case on a base class - this would only apply to derived classes |