On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Rick Waldron wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm cool with super() in methods, I forgot we disallowed naked
>> `super`, and my gut says we would support it as equivalent to `this`.
>>
>>
>> To clarify, you don't mean `super === this`, right?
>>
>
> The alternative is for bare `super` to denote the same-named superclass
> method bound to `this`. That enables the equivalence Allen wrote based on
> Brett's error citation:
>
>
> let superSubmit2 = super; // Error: "Unexpected token ;"
> superSubmit2(); // if no Error, this is equivalent to super()
>
> But that breaks the other equivalence:
>
> super.method(); ==== do { let s = super; s.method(); }
>
> So you can see why bare `super` is currently illegal! (Want a better error
> message than the one Brett showed.)
>
Yes, this is/was all clear (and I stand on the side of keeping bare super
illegal), I was just curious about what your gut was saying ;)
Agree that a more explicit early error would be ideal.
Rick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140806/39c41299/attachment.html>
domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-08-15T22:38:59.669Z)
Yes, this is/was all clear (and I stand on the side of keeping bare super
illegal), I was just curious about what your gut was saying ;)
Agree that a more explicit early error would be ideal.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote: > Rick Waldron wrote: > >> >> I'm cool with super() in methods, I forgot we disallowed naked >> `super`, and my gut says we would support it as equivalent to `this`. >> >> >> To clarify, you don't mean `super === this`, right? >> > > The alternative is for bare `super` to denote the same-named superclass > method bound to `this`. That enables the equivalence Allen wrote based on > Brett's error citation: > > > let superSubmit2 = super; // Error: "Unexpected token ;" > superSubmit2(); // if no Error, this is equivalent to super() > > But that breaks the other equivalence: > > super.method(); ==== do { let s = super; s.method(); } > > So you can see why bare `super` is currently illegal! (Want a better error > message than the one Brett showed.) > Yes, this is/was all clear (and I stand on the side of keeping bare super illegal), I was just curious about what your gut was saying ;) Agree that a more explicit early error would be ideal. Rick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140806/39c41299/attachment.html>