> Some object could have more than one ancestor. Yes, so ? It's not in contradiction with what I am saying
Le 06/03/2012 14:58, 程劭非 a écrit : > I prefer "this" to be root object. Some object could have more than > one ancestor. > > 2012/3/6 Aymeric Vitte <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- > jCore > Email : [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Web : www.jcore.fr <http://www.jcore.fr> > Webble : www.webble.it <http://www.webble.it> > Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com > <http://www.extractwidget.com> > BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com <http://www.blimpme.com> > > -- 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
