On Aug 4, 2014, at 16:33 , John Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I can tell you are basically arguing that simple Loader hooks don't > need object state. Of course that is true. No, I’m arguing that Juan’s code is basically “subclassing” a loader, overriding a method and calling that method. ES6 classes seem like a more elegant way of doing this. You’d get as much object state in the subclass as you want. > And sure we can write code that carefully and cleverly avoids using 'this'. > Why? ES6 added classes because this is often the clearest way to structure > more complex systems. > > In my case the LoaderHooks.normalize() function needs to mark names as > originating from 'script' rather than 'module' based on the name (eg > 'script:' or in my case trailing ',script'. The marking table needs to be on > 'this'. > > I extend LoaderHooks to InterceptOuputLoaderHooks which calls > this.onTranscoded() to copy the transcoded results from load to listeners. > But my real point is why should I have to think about 'this' binding in 2015? > > We don't need to use an old school API now, we have ES6. > > jjb > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 4, 2014, at 15:16 , Juan Ignacio Dopazo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In practice we've found that we rarely use the "new Loader(hooks)` option >> and instead this is more common: >> >> var loader = new Loader(); >> var loaderFetch = loader.fetch.bind(loader); >> >> loader.fetch = function (loadRecord) { >> // do something >> return loaderFetch(loadRecord); >> }; > > > > Why not like this then? You’d need (a compiler for) ES6, though. > > ```js > class MyLoader extends Loader { > fetch(loadRecord) { > // do something > return super(loadRecord); > } > } > let loader = new MyLoader(); > ``` -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
