July 25, 2012 - TC39 Meeting Notes

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Jul 30 14:56:29 PDT 2012


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> The commonly used semantics of ES5's bind did not differ significantly 
> any other widely used implementation of a Function.prototype.bind 
> method. so replacing one with the other wasn't disruptive.
Could be, but there were differences:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019382.html

I think you're on thin ice arguing this was so much less signfiicant 
than Object.extend (or let's say Object.update).

> Object.extends and similar but differently named or  located framework 
> functions are not nearly as well aligned in their core semantics.

First, "differently named" applied to bind precursors, e.g. Dojo's hitch.

Second, here's a post from jresig years ago:

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-July/006709.html

This is out of date, but note how for-in is used in all cases. There's a 
lot of common ground here, and some uncommon bits that look not a whole 
lot bigger or different-in-kind from the bind/hitch/etc. ones we 
overcame in ES5.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list