On Feb 23, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> I wonder why we cannot have toMethod, in due course. You had suggested the
> ES6 signature with a second parameter, with default value:
>
> Function.prototype.toMethod(homeObject, methodName = this.name);
>
> With a function.name spec'ed in ES6, that might be enough to address the
> concerns raised by @wycats (among other folks).
I didn't get into naming issues in this proposal, because it is either
(depending upon perspective) a parallel or orthogonal issue.
For a long while functions had a [[MethodName]] internal slot specifically to
support property name defaulting in `super` property references and the second
argument for toMethod was used to set [[MethodName]]. I don't thing having
=this.name as the default was ever in the spec. It's semi-plausable, but during
that era, not every super referencing function had a useful 'name' property
value.
If we needed to restore [[MethodName]] because we agreed to bring back implicit
super() current method name qualification the mixin operator would handle it,
an a parallel manner to what it does for [[HomeObject]]. (but the remember, the
big concerns about that feature weren't related to how the name was acquired)
Note that the lambda abstraction technique also can support a dynamically
provided method name:
let aVarNamedMixin = (obj, name) => obj mixin {
[name] () {
//do something
super[name]()
}
}
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
