Herby Vojčík wrote:
I am probably writing densely and you had little time. I have written
at the beginning of 1.:
'class ...}' as a sugar for 'function ...}.prototype'
(I put similar texts describing the idea to the header of 2. and 3. as
well)
I get it, but it is not coherent.
A function binding form in JS can be refactored as an expression, and it
evaluates to the same result that an Identifier PrimaryExpression
denoting the bound name evaluates to: the function object. Not its
.prototype when used as an expression, the function itself when denoted
by its name.
This is what I meant by incoherent. You can make it "consistent" by some
criteria but it does not match function declarations vs. expressions and
that is a problem.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
