Right. Sorry if I added to the confusion. My explanation was along the lines:
“If there is a dynamic |super|, then...”. The lexical |super| is perfectly
adequate.
I’d imagine it would work something like this (modulo some syntactic sugar):
var Super = {};
Super.foo = function() {
return "Super: "+this.id;
};
var Sub = Object.create(Super);
Sub.foo = function me() {
return "Sub "+me.super.foo.call(this);
};
// The following assignment would normally be made by an inheritance API
Sub.foo.super = Object.getPrototypeOf(Sub);
var s = Object.create(Sub);
s.id = "fcb3";
console.log(s.foo()); // Sub Super: fcb3
On Jun 21, 2011, at 0:43 , Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>
>> By the way, I like this idea that "super" is available all the time
>> (not just in an initializer) like "this" is always available; however,
>> adding another implicit variable "here" which is dynamic like "this"
>> is disconcerting as "this" has been quite a wild beast in JavaScript
>> to say the least.
>
> 'super' is not dynamic as proposed in
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_initialiser_super. Even
> in Allen's recent post about Object.defineMethod, 'super' is not bound
> dynamically per call site, as 'this' is. It's a hidden property of the
> function object.
>
> /be
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
twitter.com/rauschma
home: rauschma.de
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
