Allow `extends undefined`, or another way to write `extends` without actually extending

💡 Ideas
21

I was hoping such a proposal would not need to trigger those concerns because the syntactic correlation between usage of the extends keyword and the need to call super in a constructor remains 100%.

I don't favor void because it seems like it's saying "there is nothing above this in the prototype chain," which then makes it seems like you shouldn't be calling super. But if we design the syntax in such a way that strongly suggests that there is something conceptual base class above you in the hierarchy then there's no question about whether or not calling super is correct.

22

I actually don't - that invariant is why we can't have a proper extends null. Many people on the committee do, and I'm again just trying to set expectations that they won't be convinced to drop the invariant for this, if they weren't for the much more useful extends null.