On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
> 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.
this that was definitely a factor in my choice of semantics:
//bad
class foo {
recursive(p) {return recursive(f(p))}
}
//good
class foo {
recursive(p) {return this.recursive(f(p))}
}
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
