call-constructors-naming.md

If we make call constructors static and inherited, then maybe the name call constructor becomes a bit odd.

1. The best alternative I could come up with is static constructor:

   class Base {
     static constructor() { return new this(); }
   }

   I like it because it fits nicely with the existing syntax; and it communicates clearly that this is the class thanks to the static keyword.

2. If we're completely honest, a "constructor" is something that initializes a newly-created instance (this), but our "static constructor" doesn't actually do that. So perhaps "constructor" is a mis-nomer. I'm looking for something along the lines of static [[Call]]():

   // Not actually viable syntax, of course
   class Base {
     static [[Call]]() { return new this(); }
   }

   I'm not actually suggesting this syntax. The terminology is better, but I can't come up with something that's syntatically acceptable. Maybe someone else has an idea?

   But if not, I'm thinking static constructor would be pretty good.