On Jun 26, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> But I still wonder if we wouldn't be better off restricting where super can
>> occur. I can't prove it, but we are following in the universal-'this'
>> footsteps (but with static or els
On Jun 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> But I still wonder if we wouldn't be better off restricting where super can
> occur. I can't prove it, but we are following in the universal-'this'
> footsteps (but with static or else Object.defineMethod binding). That sounds
> a warning bell
On Jun 26, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
> This would only work inside an object literal
or in a method in a class.
> (similar to |super|, where you need to know about |here|, the owning object).
> Additionally, Allen’s Object.defineMethod already has a parameter with the
> method
On Jun 26, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> In the languages and systems that have super()-only, a method always has a
>> name.
>>
>> So we could define "method that can use super" narrowly, as the new syntax
>> in object initialiser
>>> Using an implicit property name in a super call would require that every
>>> method call implicitly pass the name used to access the property. This is
>>> just like the |here| problem.
>>
>> No, not if the compiler sees the method name and burns it into the function
>> object. Then it's ju
On Jun 26, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>
>> What property name would be be used in such implicit super calls? A
>> function doesn't know what property name was used to access it.
>
> In the languages and systems that have super
On Jun 26, 2011, at 5:09 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> There are deeper waters here. See
>> http://www.artima.com/intv/nonvirtualP.html (via
>> http://geekswithblogs.net/madhawa/archive/2006/09/17/91418.aspx) where
>> Anders Hejlsberg say
On Jun 26, 2011, at 3:05 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> What property name would be be used in such implicit super calls? A function
> doesn't know what property name was used to access it.
In the languages and systems that have super()-only, a method always has a name.
So we could define "met
On Jun 25, 2011, at 10:42 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
> There are deeper waters here. See http://www.artima.com/intv/nonvirtualP.html
> (via http://geekswithblogs.net/madhawa/archive/2006/09/17/91418.aspx) where
> Anders Hejlsberg says:
>
> "There are two schools of thought about virtual method
What property name would be be used in such implicit super calls? A function
doesn't know what property name was used to access it. Using an implicit
property name in a super call would require that every method call implicitly
pass the name used to access the property. This is just like the
10 matches
Mail list logo
