> I am in agreement with Angus on this one. > > If there is no skinny arrow, hard |this| binding should not be part of the > spec. Fat arrow functions should default to lexical |this|, but if there is > no skinny arrow, it should not be a hard binding and call/apply should be > allowed, as well as bind,
IMHO, the spec got it exactly right. We have a chance to really simplify things and introduce a clear distinction: - Methods – dynamic `this`: Use a concise method definition inside an object literal (or, hopefully, inside a class declaration). - Non-method functions – lexical `this`: Use an arrow function. Anything else is rare (see Kevin Smith’s JS code survey) and non-methods with dynamic this are usually an anti-pattern. If you really need it, there are always old-school functions. As for switching between dynamic `this` and lexical `this` depending on whether a function is called as a method or as a function. At first glance, it sounds like a good idea, like the best of both worlds. However, I’m with Domenic Denicola: it’s too brittle – a function shouldn’t work radically (and silently!) different depending on how it is invoked. Switching to this = undefined is bearable for old-school non-method functions, but switching to lexical this will lead to many hard-to-debug errors. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
