On Dec 16, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Bergi wrote: > ... > > I've read <https://esdiscuss.org/topic/referencing-super> and it seems that > needing to call `super.describe()`/`super.render()`/`super.say()` is intended > behaviour. I'm fine with that, as explicit is better than implicit and > "finding the method with the same *name*" (or something like that) is overly > complicated and maybe even ambiguous.
Yes, this is a fairly recent change to the ES6 draft specification. People who write public commentary and tutorials about ES6 need to keep up with evolving spec. changes. > > However, it seems that we need to communicate better that `super()` calls > only work in constructors, and other functions that inherit from functions > (<http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-getsuperconstructor>). > That seems to be the reason why the method name GetSuper*Constructor*() was > chosen in the spec. Rev 29 made `new super` and `new super ( )` early errors in non-constructor concise methods. It doesn't do the same thing for `super( )` calls that appears to be an editorial mistake that I will correct in Rev 30. > Yet, `super()` calls in plain methods would actually work! The method objects > would inherit from `Function.prototype`, which is itself callable: a no-op > function. This might lead to subtle bugs, where `super()` was intended to > call the parent class's method, but does nothing - not even throwing an error! > > Should an exception been thrown if the `func` returned by > `GetSuperConstructor()` is `%FunctionPrototype%`? It it [[Prototype]] was set ot %FunctionPrototype% from a different realm? I think the early error described above is a better solution as it address the syntactic context of the usage rather than actual runtime value. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
