claus.reinke at talk21.com
Sun Aug 5 13:38:54 PDT 2012
>>> But it also made me realize that by default, destructuring returns
>>> unbound methods.
>> Agreed that this is an obstacle. With operators, one could have a
>> convenient binding selection, but the destructuring case needs a
>> separate solution.
> Why does it need a separate solution? Especially if it's possible in
> destructring to have both bound and unbound?
Yes, that was misleading. Let me try again:
1 where possible, destructuring should have expression equivalent
2 autobinding selection/destructuring can be done for a whole
context object, or for selected methods in it
3 there have been suggestions for autobinding selection, ie,
an expression solution, on a per-method basis
4 your strawman suggested a destructuring solution, on a
Brendan's suggestion gives us a destructuring equivalent to
an existing expression strawman, on a per-method basis.
I was trying to give an expression equivalent to your
destructuring suggestion, on a whole-context-object basis.
That gives two separate pairs of suggested solutions.
More information about the es-discuss