Necessity of a syntax construct for bind

David Bruant david.bruant at labri.fr
Wed Aug 31 02:28:54 PDT 2011


Le 31/08/2011 10:52, Lasse Reichstein a écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:46 PM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr 
> <mailto:david.bruant at labri.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Le 30/08/2011 21:59, Lasse Reichstein a écrit :
>>     A reliable .call could probably also achieve the same.
>     A reliable .call could be achieved by composing a reliable .bind
>     and the function call syntax.
>
>
> True. The Bind operation is the currying of the Call operation.
>
> Ah, that got me thinking. I can do
>   var CallFunction = 
> Function.prototype.call.bind(Function.prototype.call);
> since bind does give a different way to set the this-object for a 
> call. This can be done once, before anybody gets to mangle the 
> builtins, and can be stored for afterwards. Excellent!
Brilliant!

Of course, it requires a native Function.prototype.bind, but that's 
brilliant!

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110831/a60cc080/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list