But it also made me realize that by default, destructuring returns
unbound methods.
...
Agreed that this is an obstacle. With operators, one could have a
convenient binding selection, but the destructuring case needs a
separate solution.
Why does it need a separate solution? Especially if
Le 03/08/2012 17:45, David Bruant a écrit :
(...)
It reminded me of an ECMAScript Regret submitted by Tom about the fact
that method are extracted unbound by default.
And after a couple of tweets related to 'with' and the canvas API I
wonder: would it be worth having another syntactic form
David Bruant wrote:
var context =
document.getElementsByTagName('canvas')[0].getContext('2d');
// bikeshed syntax for binding destructuring, my point isn't about
syntax here
var #{beginPath: begin, moveTo, lineTo, stroke, closePath: end} =
context;
// extracted methods are
But it also made me realize that by default, destructuring returns unbound methods. It's perfect
for the above use case, but may be annoying when you wish to extract functions bound to the object
they're extracted from:
var o = {a:1, f: function(){return this.a;}};
var {f} = o;
[argh, unhelpful hidden key-combo led to premature send]
But it also made me realize that by default, destructuring returns
unbound methods. It's perfect for the above use case, but may be
annoying when you wish to extract functions bound to the object
they're extracted from:
var o =
Le 04/08/2012 17:53, Claus Reinke a écrit :
[argh, unhelpful hidden key-combo led to premature send]
But it also made me realize that by default, destructuring returns
unbound methods. It's perfect for the above use case, but may be
annoying when you wish to extract functions bound to the
Hi,
I wrote some code today:
var cos = Math.cos,
sin = Math.sin,
PI = Math.PI;
// later:
x1 = x + R*cos(t)*cos(angle) - r*sin(t)*sin(angle);
First of all, it made me realize that the usual example of 'with' (using
with(Math) and an expression like I showed) turn
7 matches
Mail list logo
