Sorry.
I mean the following case:
var x = {
a:{
},
b:{
}
}
x.a.p = x.b.p = {};
So GetBase is not able to decide to return x.a or x.b.
在 2012年3月6日 下午11:08，Aymeric Vitte <[email protected]>写道：
> 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]>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
