Re: The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

> fn.bind().bind() can't throw because of backward compatibility. Well, that's fine with me. The important thing to consider would be those other things I listed that shouldn't throw. These ones: - `func.bind(...)` does not throw - `func.​toMethod​(...)` does not throw -

Re: The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

Andrea, > losing getters and setters where super is also allowed is all we *don't* need as well, not sure why keep ignoring the fact Object.assign has undesired side-effects. Right, but that's well-explained (for example, in the MDN docs). It is also easy to use `getOwnPropertyNames` or

Re: The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

> I'm just re-iterating, but `Object.assign()` is all we need losing getters and setters where super is also allowed is all we *don't* need as well, not sure why keep ignoring the fact Object.assign has undesired side-effects. On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Michał Wadas

Re: The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

fn.bind().bind() can't throw because of backward compatibility. On 1 Aug 2016 9:21 a.m., "/#!/JoePea" wrote: > Allen, I read your linked documents. After thinking about it more, I > believe it would be ideal to have both: > > 1. a tool like `toMethod`. I like "setHome" better

Re: The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

Allen, I read your linked documents. After thinking about it more, I believe it would be ideal to have both: 1. a tool like `toMethod`. I like "setHome" better as that describes much more concisely what is happening. `.bind()` is already a way to make a function *behave as a method* of the object