On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Charles Jolley <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> ClassB = ClassA.extend({
>>> foo: function method() {
>>> (IS_ES5_STRICT ? method : arguments.callee).base.apply(this, arguments);
>>> }
>>> });
>>
>> But why wouldn't you use method always? Or callee, as Ollie suggested.
>> Agree it's annoying to have to add six letters of cruft after the function
>> keyword (with space separator) but once you do that, provided you dodge IE
>> bugs, why do you need arguments.callee at all?
>
> Precisely to avoid IE bugs. So maybe it will be written more like:
>
> foo: function callee() {
> (SC.HAS_IEBUG ? arguments.callee : callee).base.apply(this, arguments);
> }
>
> where SC.HAS_IEBUG is true if IE version <= [last version of IE with
> named-method bug]
>
That does not avoid jscript bug with named function expressions; it
triggers it.
That is not "the only way" to implement inheritance. It apparently
relies on a `base` property of the function object. That is not part
of ECMAScript. What is it?
I suggest avoiding super calls. If you really must, then consider a
standard approach that will work consistently across browsers, and in
ES3 and ES5 strict:
ClassB.prototype = {
foo: function() {
ClassA.prototype.foo.call(this);
}
};
[snip]
Garrett
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
