On Tuesday, August 5, 2014, Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
wrote:

>  I sympathize; I have always found the fact that bare `super()` works to
> be confusing.
>

When a bare super() call appears in a method (whether constructor or not)
it can only have _one_ _meaning_ and that's a call to a method of the same
name in the parent class. This isn't particularly innovative: John Resig's
Simple JavaScript Inheritance[0]—arguably one of the most widely used (many
clones, forks and spin-offs exist) "abstract class" techniques—provides
`this._super()` which does the same thing that ES6 super() does. This
pattern existed before and has been repeated throughout many libraries that
have stood out over the years: Prototype, Dojo, Ext.js and certainly
others. CoffeeScript implements super() this way as well.


Rick


[0] http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140806/2fb5b2e2/attachment.html>

When a bare super() call appears in a method (whether constructor or not)
it can only have _one_ _meaning_ and that's a call to a method of the same
name in the parent class. This isn't particularly innovative: [John Resig's
Simple JavaScript Inheritance][0]—arguably one of the most widely used (many
clones, forks and spin-offs exist) "abstract class" techniques—provides
`this._super()` which does the same thing that ES6 super() does. This
pattern existed before and has been repeated throughout many libraries that
have stood out over the years: Prototype, Dojo, Ext.js and certainly
others. CoffeeScript implements super() this way as well.

[0]: http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/