On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't believe that we have discussed, at a meeting, property name capture > (other than WRT super) of ConciseMethod definitions. It is however, > something that I have thought about quite a bit. Concise methods, as > currently specified, do not create a local binding for the property name > whose value is the function.
I think we talked about this when we talked about concise methods in object literals, before classes where approved. A local binding would only be added of the name was an identifier > However, these issues could be dealt with and and I've always seen this as a > pretty close call. Are there strong use cases for giving methods a > FunctionExpression-like binding of the property name? In classes I don't think it matters much, because it is most likely the wrong to use the function without this. -- erik _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
