Making "super" work outside a literal?
petermichaux at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 10:33:57 PDT 2011
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Sean Eagan <seaneagan1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Sean Eagan wrote:
>>> I don't think we need any "safety check" when assigning a method or
>>> accessor getter or setter that uses super to an object. The concept
>>> of "super" seems to be a relative one,
>> That is what we are arguing about. It's not a conclusion we all share.
> In ES, functions are first class objects not owned by any one object,
> an "absolute" super breaks this.
I agree that dynamic "this" but static "super" seems odd but maybe
symmetry with "this" is not desired. Maybe we should have static
"super" and be looking for symmetry with a static "self".
More information about the es-discuss