Boolean objects in conditionals

Peter Michaux petermichaux at gmail.com
Fri Nov 28 22:19:24 PST 2008


On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Peter Michaux wrote:
>
>> Almost may as well just always start the class with a first line like
>> the following.
>>
>> class C(x,y) {
>>  var self = this;
>>  function m1(a,b) { /* use "self" to denote receiver */ ... }
>>  function m2(c)   { /* ditto */ ... }
>> }
>>
>> It gives non-dynamically bound "this" access which was on of the
>> issues in the wiki page. Probably not enough boiler plate to warrant
>> sugar.
>
> Possibly. It could get old if one is often referring to the whole receiver
> object. How often does that occur?
>
> It's easy to argue that desugaring should be minimal to convey to readers
> who grok the desugared language exactly what's going on. This is like
> arguing against ++x because x += 1 is short enough and more clear about
> order of operation -- but += is itself subject to such reductionistic
> opposition. What's wrong with x = x + 1 every annoying time? C'mon, it was
> enough for Pascal and most BASICs!
>
> We need user testing to get a better handle on usability. In the absence of
> that, I'm likely to oppose pedagogical reductionism in sugared additions.
> I've seen such over-minimized proposals cancel themselves out by taking
> everything away one slice at a time, as the proposal slides downslope toward
> the simpler but probably less usable kernel language.

I wonder if macros will come to ES before there is an agreement about
classes. Anyone putting money on that?

Peter


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list