So BTF stands for "bound-this function expressions"
But it does include case b (don't care about "this")
Then in the next email you conclude :
"Interestingly, when we take the sum of BTF candidates and object
literal methods, we account for over 90% of function expressions."
Is it surprising ?
"This suggests that an additional short function syntax that does
*not* bind 'this' may not be necessary."
??? Why ? Because except object literal methods (+/-50% for which the
lexical this is not supposed to be needed) most of the functions are the
b case ?
I should be missing something important... don't understand exactly what
the analysis does highlight, thanks if you can give more details
Le 14/03/2012 13:46, Kevin Smith a écrit :
As far as I have understood "Total Function Expressions" is
supposed to return all functions that do not contain "this" in
their initial scope and that have a "var self=this" trick that is
used somewhere inside the function (ie function() {var
self=this;var b=function() {console.log('test')} is not a BTF
candidate because self is not used), correct ?
Sorry, no. As stated previously, I'm assuming for the purposes of
this analysis that BTFs will be used in cases where (a) we want
lexical "this" and (b) we don't care about "this" at all. Why in the
second case? Because BTF syntax will be more concise and will
generally express the intent better.
When I started this research, I wasn't aware of the "tri-lambda" work
being done, and specifically the proposal that there be two short
function syntaxes: one for classic functions (->) and one for bound
this (=>). Clearly some of the BTF candidates could go either way,
and we really can't make that distinction in this analysis.
kevin
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
