Independent of the current issue, I just want to go on record stating that
dynamically scoped variables are a "cure" worse than any disease we might
think to apply them to. Avoid at all costs.


On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:44 AM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
wrote:

> I don't agree that @@species is useful at all for changing constructor
> signatures, since there is no closure argument.
>
> If we had dynamically scoped variables, then:
> ```
>   LabelledPromise[Symbol.species] = function() { return
> LabelledPromise.bind(label/*dynamically scoped*/); };
>   function() {
>     let label = "foo";
>     return LabelledPromise.resolve(x);
>   }
> ```
> would indeed be very interesting.  But in the absence of some sort of
> closure, the only way you can make @@species into a custom constructor is
> for odd special cases where you are just rearranging deck chairs.
>
> Why not:
>  ```
> class LabelledPromise {
>   constructor(exec, label) {
>     super(exec);
>     this.label = label === undefined ? "<derived promise>" : label;
>   }
> }
> ```
>   --scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

  Cheers,
  --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150610/8b452053/attachment-0001.html>

Independent of the current issue, I just want to go on record stating that
dynamically scoped variables are a "cure" worse than any disease we might
think to apply them to. Avoid at all costs.