Scoped binding of a method to an object
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Oct 15 08:59:56 PDT 2013
On Oct 15, 2013, at 7:22 AM, Russell Leggett wrote:
> If we didn't have :: (which we don't now), I think people will continue to simply use functions like what underscore does. Personally, I'm ok with that. If I want to have unscoped extensions and live with the consequences - I will be happy to use symbols. If I want to make a polyfill, I'll just do it the same way we've been doing it. But, as much as Allen seems to accuse me of being an FP guy, I still want to have a thing which feels like a method to be on the right so I find that using :: (if it existed) would be a nice compromise.
Hey, it was a general rant and not specifically directed at you or anybody else.
More information about the es-discuss