My code was not a fix, it was intended to show that while your first case’
behavior was explained in the spec (super had to be null), the one of my own
case was not (ie: the interaction of ‘super’ with bind).
I’ve no idea of how we should solve the problem. Maybe the ‘bind’ method should
create a copy of the original function whose ‘boundThis’ is equal to the
object’s this and whose ‘super’ is equal to Object.getPrototypeOf(this).
function Obj() { }
Obj.prototype.getX = function() { return 10; }
function Obj2() { Obj(this); }
Obj2.prototype = Object.create(Obj.prototype);
Obj2.prototype.getX = function() { return super.getX()+1; }
var a = new Obj2();
var b = Object.create({getX:function() { return 100; }});
b.getX=a.getX.bind(b);
assert(a.getX() == 11);
assert(a.getX() == 101); // or should it be 11?
A typical programming language would (probably) require 11, but then you’ve no
way to solve the asynchronous pattern (super would remain null and only this
would be bound).
François
From: John J Barton
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 6:16 PM
To: François REMY
Cc: Brendan Eich ; Axel Rauschmayer ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Super-calls
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 9:05 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
In my understanding, super would be null.
What would be more complex is :
var widget = {
hookup: function() {
// |this| is widget
// |super| is widget
window.addEventListener('load', function(event) {
// |this| is widget
// |super| ??
}.bind(this), false);
Unfortunately my example and your fix are both impractical. We have to bind the
function *and* save a reference to it because we don't have garbage collection.
That provides another example to try to understand super:
this.loadHandler = function(event){
// this is widget
// Now super?
}.bind(this);
window.addEventListener('load', this.loadHandler, false);
}
};
widget.hookup();
jjb
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
