On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 12:25:42 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  If a magically in-scope binding is necessary to access module meta
> capabilities, giving it a name like `module` or `System.currentModule`
> would be much better.
>
`System.currentModule` requires magic. It would require the engine to know
where the call site was.

We also talked about adding a binding, like NodeJS does but @David Herman
<dherman at mozilla.com> argued that thaw is a non starter.

So, if we don't want to use `this` or introduce a new binding name, or add
more magic, the only thing left seems to be new dedicated syntax. In ES4 we
`this function` which is similar to what @Axel Rauschmayer
<axel at rauschma.de> suggested.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/5b186ab1/attachment.html>

On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 12:25:42 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

>  If a magically in-scope binding is necessary to access module meta
> capabilities, giving it a name like `module` or `System.currentModule`
> would be much better.
>
`System.currentModule` requires magic. It would require the engine to know
where the call site was.

We also talked about adding a binding, like NodeJS does but David Herman argued that that is a non starter.

So, if we don't want to use `this` or introduce a new binding name, or add
more magic, the only thing left seems to be new dedicated syntax. In ES4 we
`this function` which is similar to what Axel Rauschmayer suggested.