This is what Sam is referring to -- we've been talking about exactly such a
feature. I continue to believe that something like the ^this feature we've been
talking about is as likely to introduce bugs as it is to fix bugs. It's like
special language support for off-by-one errors.
Dave
PS A propos of nothing, the ^this syntax probably doesn't work because of ASI;
try parsing:
x = y
^this.foo()
On Mar 29, 2011, at 6:47 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> On 2011-03-29, at 08:52, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
>> I agree entirely that it goes with the existing fixed implicit |this|
>> binding -- I just think that cuts the other way. The reason we're
>> having this discussion is that the existing behavior of |this| isn't
>> always what you want, and is hard to get around because of its fixed
>> and implicit nature. I think we should alleviate *that* problem, not
>> just the worst symptom.
>
> Way back in
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/007273.html
>
> I raised the `this` problem: When you write a function you can choose the
> names of all your parameters (for maximum legibility of your code) except the
> implicit one, where you are forced to accept the name `this`. If you could
> specify a different name, specifying which implicit binding you meant in the
> presence of multiples would be simplified.
>
> I won't propose a syntax for specifying an alternative name for `this`, for
> fear of being taken out to the (bike)shed and getting caned, but I do think
> it worth considering: why must that implicit parameter have a fixed name?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
