(How) does proto operator distiguish between function and non-function in LHS?

Herby Vojčík herby at mailbox.sk
Sat Jan 28 12:04:08 PST 2012

David Bruant wrote:
> Le 28/01/2012 09:28, Herby Vojčík a écrit :
>> The proposal for<| cites these usage examples:
>> - Setting the prototype of a function to something other than
>> Function.prototype
>>      let f = EnhancedFunctionPrototype<| function () {}
>> - Parrallel constructor/instance prototype chains
>>      let superclass = function () {};
>>      //define a constructor method
>>      superclass.new = function () {return (new this()).initialize()};
>>      //define a instance method
>>      superclass.prototype.initialize = function () {return this};
>>      let subclass = superclass<| function () {};
>>      ...
>> Question: When RHS is function expression, does it distinguish if LHS
>> is function to select one of the (different) behaviours from above?
> The problem is that even if it did, it wouldn't be enough to say if the
> intention of the programmer was the first case (enhanced function
> prototype) or the second case (richer constructor), since a function on
> the LHS could be used in both cases.

Exactly, that was my concern, too.

> I have raised the concern already and am not sure I have received an
> answer yet. I think 2 operators should be created. One for each case.

I would apply different, more cutting approach. Ditch the former 
completely. For functions, it is natural to inherit from functions.So 
that ultimately it leads to Function.prototype.

(Having jQuery) you can do $.extend(function(){}, x) <| function (...) 
{...} to achieve similar thing.

> One question that could arise is: what if someone wants to build a
> function with a particular constructor behavior and an enhanced
> prototype (unrelated to the constructor it "inherits" from)?

Well, I would definitely say this is so special that "make simple things 
simple, make hard things hard" is appropriate and no helper would be 
there for the user. He can do it by:

   var f = FunParent <| function (...) {...};
   f.prototype = Object.create(protoParent, { constructor: {
     value:f, writable:true, configurable:true

> One answer could be that the 2 operators could be composed together.

And it works in line with ditching the proto-for-function syntax.

> David


More information about the es-discuss mailing list