AFAIKT, Crockford is referring to an older version of the proposal.
[[[Sent from a mobile device. Please forgive brevity and typos.]]] Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] Home: http://rauschma.de Blog: http://2ality.com On 01.04.2012, at 10:30, Dmitry Soshnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, wait, just have read Crock's article on => functions. A Python's style of > passing manual `this'? That's interesting (why it's not specified on the > wiki? where Crockford took it from? did you discuss it in a close ECMA > meeting?). Inconsistent again with other functions. > > So, let's see, overall we have .. 6 types of functions in JS, and all have > their own specific features. That's again interesting, if won't cause > confusion. > > Dmitry > > > On Apr 1, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote: > >> >> On Apr 1, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: >> >>>>> Ah, good. But one can use the above (pseudo-)desugaring to predict the >>>>> behavior of arrow functions, right? That is, there is no observable >>>>> difference. >>>> >>>> There is, again, the difference in terms of delegation to the target's >>>> [[Construct]] in case of a bound function, see the spec ("bound" per ES5, >>>> of course, since, as Brendan notices, it's not just a syntactic sugar, but >>>> a new special type of functions). >>> >>> OK. Ignoring [[Construct]] and .prototype, any other differences? >> >> Well, "ES5-bounds" also do not have `prototype' property, but delegate to >> the target's `prototype'. However, yes, there is the (main) difference in >> respect of supporting TCP (if I understand correctly, since had no time to >> follow the complete thread) -- return and break/continue jumps to the parent >> frame instead of working with the function itself. >> >> Lexical `this' is the only similar thing to bound functions, so we should >> not call => functions as synonym to bound functions. You may say, => >> function _as well as_ a bound captures `this' lexically, but in contrast >> with it, it has other features. In my later analysis, I'll specify them as >> a new type of functions -- AF (Arrow Function) -- in addition to FE, FD, >> NFE, BF, etc., with many own features, but not just a syntactic sugar -- >> neither for FE, nor for BF. >> >> Dmitry >> > > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
