> I can't remember the example I used in the meeting, but one example is a
> recursive function:
>
> class Chicken extends Weapon {
> constructor(length, elasticity, initialVelocity) {
> this.length = length;
> this.elasticity = elasticity;
> this.initialVelocity = initialVelocity;
>
> var self = this;
>
> function animate() {
> ...
> self.velocity
> self.elasticity
> self.length
> ...
> setTimeout(animate, n);
> ...
> }
>
> ...
> }
> }
I don’t see the problem. Would the following code not work?
```js
const animate = () => {
...
this.velocity
this.elasticity
this.length
...
setTimeout(animate, n);
...
};
```
> The point I was making in the meeting was that arrow functions are a
> syntactic convenience for a common case, not a general-purpose replacement
> for all functions that need to refer to an outer this-binding. They are not
> general-purpose because they don't support all the features of longhand
> functions.
Given that function names will probably be inferred by engines, only hoisting
would be an advantage of a hypothetical longhand function with lexical `this`(?)
What I’m worried about is conceptual simplicity. I like function declarations
and prefer them to function expressions, but recently did a small survey on
Twitter and was surprised to find out that the majority of people prefer var +
function expression to a function declaration, because then there is only a
single kind of function definition.
Axel
--
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
