My preference would be for `super()` to remain as-is, and give `super` the equivalent semantics: reference a method of the same name in the parent class (as opposed to invoke). I only provided the alternative since my ultimate view is that `super` and `super()` should function similarly (either both be legal, or both be illegal).
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Rick Waldron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
