I actually agree. I included non-this methods only because reading through this thread I got a feeling that there was some consensus that they be treated differently. More than happy to not do that.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 3 June 2012 20:13, Angus Croll <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not suggesting that arrow functions be special cased or that they ignore > > |thisArg|. I'm suggesting for all relevant cases (=>, bind and no > |this|) we > > only throw an error on call/apply if the |thisArg| is non null. > > That would not only be a breaking change, as Brendan pointed out. More > importantly, it would also not be something you truly want. Consider > this piece of code: > > function C(x) { this.x = x } > C.prototype.f = function() { return this.x } > C.prototype.g = function() { return this.f() * 2 } > C.prototype.h = function() { return 41 } > > let o = new C(21) > foo(o, [o.f, o.g, o.h]) > > where > > function foo(o, funs) { > // ... > for (let f of values(funs)) { > result += f.call(o) > } > } > > According to your suggestion, foo would throw. But there is no actual > reason why foo should care that h is a constant method. That's an > implementation detail. Why should the caller have to jump through > hoops to account for implementation details of the callee? > > I think there is a misconception here is that this-oblivious > methods/functions are something _different_ from "normal" > methods/functions. They aren't. They are just a _special case_ of > normal methods/functions. Just like functions that ignore any other > parameter. Consequently, you don't usually want to treat them > differently. I claim that code that tries has a 98% likelihood of > being broken -- or at least of smelling rather bad. > > /Andreas >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
