On Mar 28, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson wrote:
With your proposal I have to do let f = obj.foo;
obj::f which is even longer than the original.
That's not a fair argument. There's no need for the let-binding; you can write
obj::obj.foo
or
::obj.foo
Now, you might feel that it's
On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:14 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
I'm sure this is a bit of a tangent, but the other major related case is
passing a method as an argument but needing to retain the correct this.
Obviously, that is what bind was meant for, but that is inconvenient when
passing methods for
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM, David Herman dher...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:14 PM, Russell Leggett wrote:
I'm sure this is a bit of a tangent, but the other major related case is
passing a method as an argument but needing to retain the correct this.
Obviously, that is
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.comwrote:
Ah, there you go. I figured I wasn't the first to think of it. I think it
might be worth talking about this in relation to the shorthand function
syntax, because it could pull the lexical this issue out of that
I'm not sure how to quantify this, but I believe that if such a bind
operator were available, it would be overwhelmingly be used to simulate
lexical |this|.
If syntax is about optimizing the common case, then shouldn't we just
provide a function form which lexically binds |this|?
kevin
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM, John Tamplin j...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Russell Leggett
russell.legg...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, there you go. I figured I wasn't the first to think of it. I think it
might be worth talking about this in relation to the shorthand
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure how to quantify this, but I believe that if such a bind
operator were available, it would be overwhelmingly be used to simulate
lexical |this|.
If syntax is about optimizing the common case, then shouldn't we
Thats not the only common case. It might be *the most* common, but I see a
lot method pointers that need binding too.
Can you post an example?
kevin
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Russell, I looked at the other thread more carefully and now understand
what you're saying. Can't we use a bound |this| function for all these
cases?
needsCallback(x = foo.bar(x));
needsCallback(x = this.bar(x));
// Suppose for a moment that - also binds |this|
needsCallback((x,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems that with bound |this| functions, the need to explicitly bind
|this| tends to fall away.
This is true for function literals that needs to be bound to the `this`
context in the scope where they're created, but not
BTW, there's also some discussion on a bind operator at a ticket I opened
on CoffeeScript's tracker,
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/issues/2136 (slightly based on
the syntax proposed on Sugar for *.prototype and for calling methods as
functions
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Kevin Smith khs4...@gmail.com wrote:
Russell, I looked at the other thread more carefully and now understand
what you're saying. Can't we use a bound |this| function for all these
cases?
needsCallback(x = foo.bar(x));
needsCallback(x = this.bar(x));
I find this proposal backwards. It requires an expeession as the right
hand side. Alex proposed something similar a long time ago. He
suggested using '!' instead of '.'. This is important because the
common use case we want to solve is to make 'obj.foo.bind(foo)' be
written as 'obj!foo'. With your
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Erik Arvidsson erik.arvids...@gmail.comwrote:
I find this proposal backwards. It requires an expeession as the right
hand side. Alex proposed something similar a long time ago. He
suggested using '!' instead of '.'. This is important because the
common use
14 matches
Mail list logo
