Conversation

Replying to

{ setX: function(x) { this._x = x; } } // works as expected { setX: (x) => { this._x = x; } } // haha nope, corrupts `window` probably

Replying to

var a = { setX: (x) => { this._x = x; } }; a.setX(67); console.log(a._x); // undefined console.log(window._x); // 67

Replying to

Of course if you're using both a setter and a getter it can take you quite a while to work out what's going on here -_-

Replying to

I call this "syntactic broken glass"

Replying to

In summary, JavaScript has two syntaxes for functions. One does what you'd expect, and the other does the opposite

Replying to

Already knowing JavaScript reasonably well doesn't change this, it just flips which is which

Replying to

If you're wondering how you actually do arrow function methods, the accepted answer on Stack Overflow is "You can't, this is impossible"

Replying to

FWIW you usually don't need arrow methods, as you can just write " method() { return ... } " in an object literal.

Replying to

whaaaaat where is that documented? literally the first time I hear about this

Replying to

Try going to the ES6 compat table kangax.github.io/compat-table/e and unfolding/reading the test code for unfamiliar features.

Replying to

I do that from time to time but I appear to have missed the object literal extensions. Neat.

9:43 AM · Mar 23, 2016Twitter Web Client