Note: JavaScript will never go the Java or C# route of including properties in
local scope (which would be just like `with`), there will just be a shortcut
for `this` (so IDEs won’t have a problem).
But I agree with your other points: my taste is such that 5 chars are not worth
the increase in grawlixiness and I enjoy the symmetry induced by the longer
`this`.
On Jan 23, 2012, at 10:41 , François REMY wrote:
> Just to confirm: you are not alone. I always thought that allowing to imply
> local this (‘this.’) was a bad idea (C#). Seriously, this is not 5 chars
> that’ll hurt but it could make IDE work a lot easier, and it make code reuse
> more efficient (if you need to copy/paste some code, if you stay in the same
> class, it will work as intended, not if a function argument can override the
> class field). It also brings symetry to the code (this.a==other.a).
> From: Axel Rauschmayer
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:26 AM
> To: Brendan Eich
> Cc: ECMAScript discussion
> Subject: Re: shortcuts for defining block-local private names,plays nicely
> with @foo syntax
>
>>> function Point(everyone, secret) {
>>> .everyone = everyone;
>>
>> You're requiring manual semicolon insertion before lines like this.
>> Consciously?
>
>
> Sight. Right. Not a good idea, then.
>
> An important consideration is that eliminating `this` will increase the
> grawlix-factor of JavaScript (I always liked the explicit `this`, especially
> compared to Java).
>
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
[email protected]
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
