For the record, I strongly dislike the function behaviour. Turning a function expression into a declaration silently changes the meaning of internal recursive references, in ways that many people find very surprising. That is an unnecessary pitfall.
Your argument essentially is that you want to be able to do some AOP-style hacking on (otherwise internal) class bindings. But as Allen pointed out, that isn't reliable anyway, nor would it work for classes that do not happen to be defined using class declaration syntax. So I think it is a fairly weak argument. It is even preferable that the language does not encourage such brittle patterns. In summary, I'm glad that we did not adopt this behaviour for classes. (On the other hand, I do think that it probably was a serious mistakes to make class bindings mutable.) /Andreas On 4 March 2015 at 13:23, Jason Orendorff <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess we are just going to disagree here. Double bindings with > mutability still seem clearly bad. I can't make sense of the rationale > that classes can cope with every external binding being mutable except > for, somehow, their own name, and we're doing users a favor by > "protecting" them from "tampering" for just this one binding in this > one place. > > -j > _______________________________________________ > 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
