I like this very much. I would prefer this to my recommendation. So how to we go about proposing it as a change to an existing proposal?
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < [email protected]> wrote: > The way it could work is similar to the following one: > > ```js > > (function (wm){'use strict'; > > // just to show the possible internal slot mechanism > Object.prototype.boundTo = function (method) { > // since I've used this for ages now in eddy.js, just replicating > var fn = typeof method === 'function' ? method : this[method]; > var bound = wm.get(this); > if (!bound) wm.set(this, bound = {fn:[], bound:[]}); > var i = bound.fn.indexOf(fn); > if (i < 0) bound.bound[i = bound.fn.push(fn) - 1] = fn.bind(this); > return bound.bound[i]; > }; > > }(new WeakMap)); > > > // example > var obj = {method: function () { return this; }}; > > // now, whenever needed > obj.boundTo(obj.method); > > // will create the slot and set it up with obj.method > // so that the following is true > obj.boundTo(obj.method) === obj.boundTo('method') && > obj.boundTo('method')() === obj; > > // if it's about another method > // the equivalent of this > ::obj.anotherMethod > > // whould be > obj.boundTo(anotherMethod); > > ``` > > The string fallback is not needed or relevant, it's just a semantic > shortcut in my example to reach the method through the object without > repeating the object name > > Regards > > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:23 PM, JD Isaacks <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes your point of view is more clear now, I like this is a lot. >> >> But I do not know how that would be transpiled or what the desugared >> version would look like. However, that would be awesome as you described. >> >> A thing to note. You keep using `obj::method` which is different from >> `::object.method` the former is when method is not already attached to the >> object, the later is for then it is. >> >> An example: >> >> ``` >> let foo = function(){}; >> let bar = {}; >> >> bar::foo // foo.bind(bar); >> ``` >> >> verses >> >> ``` >> let bar = { foo(){} }; >> >> ::foo.bar // foo.bar.bind(foo); >> ``` >> >> I think both cases theoretically would be awesome to work as you >> described. Just fuzzy on how it would look underneath. >> >> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, I've got that, my point is that whenever you need it you just >>> `obj::method` >>> >>> Your example indeed says that currently the proposal is that >>> `obj::method` is similar to `obj.method.bind(obj)` which is indeed always >>> different and indeed you want something that makes method always the >>> same/unique bound one, which I believe is universally the preferred way. >>> >>> What are two different bound of the same method useful for? Pretty much >>> nothing, IMHO, while having a shortcut to lazily obtain a single bound >>> version of that method for that object can be useful in many ways, as >>> example `obj.on('event', anotherObj::method)` where it's always possible at >>> that point to `obj.removeListener('event', anotherObj::method)` in case its >>> needed. >>> >>> Having a shortcut that all it does is replace something already short to >>> write like a `.bind` feels to me like a missed opportunity. >>> >>> Moreover, with this improvement you won't need/care to have self-bound >>> methods at all >>> >>> ```js >>> let obj = { method(){} }; >>> >>> // and whenever needed you use >>> obj::method; >>> ``` >>> >>> Hope my POV is more clear now. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM, JD Isaacks <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think what you are suggesting already exists with `::obj.method` >>>> which evaluates to `obj.method.bind(obj)` >>>> >>>> However, this creates a new function each time so `::obj.method >>>> !== ::obj.method`, not sure how `::obj.method === ::obj.method` would work. >>>> >>>> I sort of agree with you that using it that way would be preferred. >>>> However if the community wants bound methods attached to objects, there is >>>> currently no way to do that with an object literal. >>>> >>>> You would have to do something like: >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> let obj = {}; >>>> obj.method = function(){}.bind(obj); >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> With my proposal you can. >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> let obj = { ::method(){} }; >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Andrea Giammarchi < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just my thoughts, I wouldn't put any self-bound thing in the class and >>>>> rather improve that `::` proposal so that whenever you `obj::method` it >>>>> creates a uniquely bound callback so that `obj::method === obj::method` >>>>> and >>>>> at that point whenever you need to export, pass, or use such method you >>>>> just `obj::method` or `obj::method()` or `let method = obj::method` and >>>>> bring the pattern whenever it's needed instead of being slightly different >>>>> per each "place" (class rather than objects) >>>>> >>>>> That would make it lazy, usable for events (in order to be able to >>>>> also remove them) and easily transpilable for smoother migration. >>>>> >>>>> Having `class A { ::method() {} }` feels like somebody is playing too >>>>> much with the protoype or "accidentally" polluting the constructor >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:50 PM, JD Isaacks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andrea, Sort of. I am talking about adding an additional place where >>>>>> that operator `::` can be used -- with concise methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently they cannot be used in the way I described above but I >>>>>> think there are several reasons why it makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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
