My experience with mere mortals (e.g. me) is that over time classes
accumulate methods, and often no one bothers to take time to group
static methods together in the source. This makes it easy to
errantly put "this" inside a static method without realizing the
implications. Java's compile-time catch of that problem is nice.
I see the value of referring to the class within a static method
(other than by using the class name itself). I also think it may be
advisable to use an identifier other than "this". Otherwise it's too
easy to miss the fact that a method is static.
Another way to state this: most programmers new to JS struggle with
figuring out what "this" refers to in a given context. Adding yet
another situation in which "this" could be this or that seems a bit
risky.
On Aug 20, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>> In ES3, i use this in context of a function instance.
>>
>> A = function A () {
>>
>> }
>> A.instances = { };
>> A.getById = function getById( id ) {
>> return ( this.instances.hasOwnProperty( id ) && this.instances
>> [ id ] ) ||
>> ( this.instances[ id ] = new this( id ) );
>> };
>>
>> static this?
>
> Yes, it's natural to expect |this| in a "class static method" to be
> the class object. I've mentioned this to Jeff and we talked about the
> trade-offs with respect to outlawing |this|. The binding of |this| in
> your example does depend on how A.getById is called, and will be
> wrong if the method is extracted and called via another base object.
> But, one could argue that's a bug to fix with real class statics, not
> a reason to think |this| might be considered ambiguous.
>
> /be
>
> _______________________________________________
> Es4-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es4-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es4-discuss
