that's true! I miss that too! We are working on a framework for the company here, and sometimes, getting the callee would be really useful, and we simply can't!!! Removing the arguments.caller/calee could make more sense if, like other features, had been replaced by another syntax.
What was the main reason why caller/calee were removed? Cheers. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > I miss you `arguments.callee`, specially in this "fat arrows era" where > most of the time developers don't even care about removing listeners. > > Apologies for the laud thought and Best Regards > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On Feb 26, 2015, at 4:10 AM, Leon Arnott wrote: >> >> The twitter thread starts here: >> https://twitter.com/getify/status/570614952605560838 and basically boils >> down to the observation that this: >> ``` >> ({ f() { return f; }}.f()) /* ReferenceError (probably) */ >> ``` >> is not semantically identical to this: >> ``` >> ({ f: function f() { return f; } }.f()) /* function f() */ >> ``` >> That is, concise methods cannot seamlessly recursively call or reference >> themselves. (Personally, I feel like concise methods *should* be a binding >> within themselves in a manner identical to named function expressions, but >> if this has been discussed before and discarded then I understand.) >> >> You may notice that both of the methods above have the same name, "f", in >> spite of one lacking the lexical binding. Formerly, named functions always >> (barring internal var statements etc.) had lexical bindings to themselves, >> and the whole ES6 function name inference dealie breaks this correlation. I >> don't think this is really an important issue, though - assuming that a >> `.name` property equated to a binding was not a safe assumption (especially >> since IE never implemented `.name` but did support the binding). >> >> >> Note that property names are restricted to being valid identifiers. Note >> of the following concise methods could possibly use their property name as >> a lexical binding: >> >> let o = { >> 42() {}, >> " this is not an identifier"() {}, >> ""() {}, >> if() {}, >> [Symbol.iterate]() {} >> }; >> >> We may have a universal way for functions to self reference themselves i >> post ES6. >> >> allen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- *Felipe N. Moura* Senior Web Developer Website: http://felipenmoura.org Twitter: @felipenmoura <http://twitter.com/felipenmoura> LinkedIn: http://goo.gl/qGmq Meet some of my projects: BrazilJS Conference <http://braziljs.com.br/> | BrazilJS Foundation <http://braziljs.org> | Power Polygon <http://github.com/braziljs/power-polygon> | TheWebMind <http://thewebmind.org/> | PHPDevBar <https://addons.mozilla.org/pt-BR/firefox/addon/php-developer-toolbar/> --------------------------------- LinuxUser #508332 *Changing the world* is the least I expect from myself!
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
