On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I sympathize; I have always found the fact that bare `super()` works to >> be confusing. >> > > When a bare super() call appears in a method (whether constructor or not) > it can only have _one_ _meaning_ and that's a call to a method of the same > name in the parent class. This isn't particularly innovative: > Note: I don't mean to imply that any of the examples I gave here are innovative either, they all copy the design (in a quasi-super-via-API way) and semantics that exist in other languages and I'd bet specifically Ruby. (Python requires the fully qualified name, which should be proof that JS has it right by allowing both forms) Rick John Resig's Simple JavaScript Inheritance[0]—arguably one of the most > widely used (many clones, forks and spin-offs exist) "abstract class" > techniques—provides `this._super()` which does the same thing that ES6 > super() does. This pattern existed before and has been repeated throughout > many libraries that have stood out over the years: Prototype, Dojo, Ext.js > and certainly others. CoffeeScript implements super() this way as well. > > > Rick > > > [0] http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/ >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
