On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rick Waldron wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Domenic Denicola <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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: 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. >> > > CoffeeScript imitated Ruby here. > > Smalltalk had super rather than self sends, but you had to send with the > full selector (think method name). Java has super() in constructors but > requires super.method() in methods. I'm cool with super() in methods, I > forgot we disallowed naked `super`, and my gut says we would support it as > equivalent to `this`. To clarify, you don't mean `super === this`, right? Rick
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
