On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
Almost may as well just always start the class with a first line like the following.class C(x,y) { var self = this; function m1(a,b) { /* use "self" to denote receiver */ ... } function m2(c) { /* ditto */ ... } } It gives non-dynamically bound "this" access which was on of the issues in the wiki page. Probably not enough boiler plate to warrant sugar.
Possibly. It could get old if one is often referring to the whole receiver object. How often does that occur?
It's easy to argue that desugaring should be minimal to convey to readers who grok the desugared language exactly what's going on. This is like arguing against ++x because x += 1 is short enough and more clear about order of operation -- but += is itself subject to such reductionistic opposition. What's wrong with x = x + 1 every annoying time? C'mon, it was enough for Pascal and most BASICs!
We need user testing to get a better handle on usability. In the absence of that, I'm likely to oppose pedagogical reductionism in sugared additions. I've seen such over-minimized proposals cancel themselves out by taking everything away one slice at a time, as the proposal slides downslope toward the simpler but probably less usable kernel language.
/be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
