On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > (I think I'm the only one to use the syntax ^this in a proposal so I'm not > sure where 1,3,4 (at least using ^this syntax) came from.
Well, I wasn't sure if you meant 1 or 2, and other people had suggested 3 and 4 (but I think using # instead of ^). >> Personally, I think that a way to name the implicit binding of the >> receiver would be better than adding more hardcoded names to the >> standard. The |^this| proposals seem problematically implicit, >> especially since we had quite reasonable suggestions (at the meeting >> at least) for naming |this| explicitly instead. > > The reason I really like ^this is it co-exists very nicely with the existing > fixed implicit this binding. It address the primary scoping issue that > arises from that implicit binding. Unlike the explicit this naming forms > that have been discussed it would work in all function definition forms > without adding any new header syntax to any of the function definition forms. I agree entirely that it goes with the existing fixed implicit |this| binding -- I just think that cuts the other way. The reason we're having this discussion is that the existing behavior of |this| isn't always what you want, and is hard to get around because of its fixed and implicit nature. I think we should alleviate *that* problem, not just the worst symptom. -- sam th [email protected] _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
