On Jun 26, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> In the languages and systems that have super()-only, a method always has a
>> name.
>>
>> So we could define "method that can use super" narrowly, as the new syntax
>> in object initialiser, or in class body.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Note above underlined bit.)
>> No, not if the compiler sees the method name and burns it into the function
>> object. Then it's just an internal property, analogous to static super. This
>> is what engines do today with named function forms (definitions, named
>> function expressions).
>
> I don't follow what you're saying here --
>
> SomePrototype.foo = function() { super() }
See above -- I was suggesting restricting super to certain contexts: methods in
classes and object initialisers only. Just a thought.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
