Ah ok, I understand now; if you're using the `class` syntax, you want to be able to arbitrarily and declaratively bind methods to the instance. Makes sense.
I also prefer your suggestion to delegating this functionality to a decorator; ideally the decorator would be built into the language. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Bergi <[email protected]> wrote: > Gilbert B Garza schrieb: > >> Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but isn't the entire purpose of using >> classes to make all instances share the same function in memory via `this` >> ? If you want methods to always be bound, why not use closures instead? >> >> ```js >> function Person (name) { >> var person = this >> person.greet = function () { >> return person.name + " says hi!"; >> }; >> } >> > > Yes, the point of prototypes is sharing. But maybe we don't want (cannot > use) that. > The point of the `class` syntax is just to enable a more declarative > definition of class methods - which should include some way to create > instance methods as well, simply because they're needed often enough. > > And being able to declare methods that will get bound outside of the > constructor (even if that's a bit confusing) avoids much boilerplate again. > Just compare > ```js > class Person extends … { > constructor(name) { > super(name); > this.greet = () => { > return this.name + " says hi!"; > }; > } > } > ``` > vs > ```js > class Person extends … { // with default constructor > ::greet() { > return this.name + " says hi!"; > } > } > ``` > > Regards, > Bergi > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
