I followed the link, but the example was a bit different from this one and you are using the assignment operator.
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 3:19 AM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: > > I don’t think we should make it easier to shoot yourself in the foot by > auto-binding methods (and thus creating new copies of the method for every > instance of the class). > > From: Matthew Robb [mailto:matthewwr...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 14:16 > To: Jordan Harband > Cc: Domenic Denicola; Kevin Smith; es-discuss > Subject: Re: Example of real world usage of function bind syntax > > Here's a cool trick I found using this bind syntax today: Babel REPL > <http://babeljs.io/repl/#?experimental=true&evaluate=true&loose=false&spec=false&playground=false&code=class%20Foo%20%7B%0A%20%20bar%20%3D%20%3A%3Athis.bar%3B%0A%20%20bar()%7B%20%20%7D%0A%7D> > > But it lead me to think that class methods could have `::` prefixed onto them > to suggest that they be lightly bound method references: > > class X { > ::Y() { } > } > > > - Matthew Robb > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Jordan Harband <ljh...@gmail.com > <mailto:ljh...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I find the call form of the operator (`a::b()`) very useful on its own. > > However, I think the main question is, will shipping the prefixed bind or > prefixed call forms of the operator (`::a.b`, `::a.b()`), and/or the bind > form of the operator (`a::b`), definitely preclude future extension with > partial application, etc, or can those still be worked in somehow? If there's > a way to include all four forms and leave open the future possibility of > extension, I think, as Domenic points out, that we would see a lot of value > from the bind and prefix forms as well. > > > On Thursday, June 11, 2015, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me > <mailto:d...@domenic.me>> wrote: > From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org > <mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org>] On Behalf Of Matthew Robb > > > I would be significantly less excited about it if this happens. The > > ability to pass around "lightly" bound references to methods is a big deal > > imo and a large part of the value in this proposal. > > Definitely agree. Being able to do `foo.map(::this.bar)` is really great, and > even `const extracted = ::foo.bar` is nothing to sneeze at. > > I know there's a thread on the issue tracker where a few vocal voices are > complaining that they want partial application syntax and bikeshedding on > various operator forms related to that, but I don't think that should > discourage the excellent benefits that you're giving to everyone but those > few. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
