I prefer "this" to be root object. Some object could have more than one ancestor.
2012/3/6 Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]> > Yes, assuming that GetBase is usable (8.9) : > > var obj = { > x:{ > a: GetBase(this) // obj > } > } > > But it is an internal function only, there are things defined in specs to > access properties of objects but nothing the other way, because I believe > the case never happens today. > > The "this" proposal is not bad for me (and even good), if I take Lasse > Reichstein's objection, I would say : > > {"a" : this.b, //undefined > "b" : this.a } //undefined > > > Same as if you do : function f() {this.a = this.b; this.b = this.a}; var g > = new f();//g.a undefined //g.b undefined > > It does not solve your issue but it makes me think to a more global issue, > the "lexical this" here > http://brendaneich.com/2011/01/harmony-of-my-dreams/ or this post > https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-February/020749.html(which > apparently did not passionate) > > But this should not be applicable to functions only, this could be > generalized to objects, where "this" unless explicitely bound to something > should refer to the object itself, and not the global object (moreover that > there are discussions about the future of the global object) > > Then an Object.GetBase could be added to refer to the "parent" or "outer > object" > > I am not aware of all discussions (maybe it was already discussed and > rejected) and it's not easy to see the whole impact of such change, but I > don't think that the idea is absurd, I did not invent it myself and it > would be more logical than the current behavior of "this" and avoid > repetitives operations (var self=this, getters/setters, use of new (why do > I have to use new in the example above ?)) > > Regards > > A. Vitte > > Le 05/03/2012 13:16, 程劭非 a écrit : > > { > "a":123, > "b": this.a > } > > If you simply want “this” in JSON.parse, it will not be hard to > implement it in my library. > But I guess the problem is we have no way to refer to its parent. Do you > have any ideas? > > 2012/3/5 gaz Heyes <[email protected]> > >> It's a shame that "this" doesn't work with object literals :( >> How nice would this be: >> >> { >> "a":123, >> "b": this.a >> } >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing > [email protected]https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > -- > jCore > Email : [email protected] > Web : www.jcore.fr > Webble : www.webble.it > Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com > BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
