@wycats didn't sneak in, discussed at both Nov and Sept TC39 meetings
-
-
-
-
@wycats no, in terms of [[CreateAction]] & future proofing -
@awbjs We absolutely, 100% never discussed this. This is terrible. -
@wycats not true, and it's really necessary to make super() calls in constructors work under the new scheme -
@awbjs This is terrible. -
@wycats I won't have done it if it wasn't necessary -
@awbjs We discussed it in the context of new^, then removed new^. We did not discuss doing it in the context of [[CreateAction]] - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
-
@brendaneich I mean in metods, not constructors. You remember us agreeing to remove super() in methods?!@awbjs -
@wycats@brendaneich The problem is that in a function() {} you don't know if the ultimate use is as a method or as a constructor -
@awbjs the argument for removing super() was specific to the proposal that failed.@brendaneich -
@wycats@brendaneich No, that's not correct. The necessity became apparent while considering that proposal. - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@wycats Was the behavior of bare `super()` previous defined in the spec? Trying to figure out how we should categorize this change in 6to5. -
@thejameskyle I'd hold off. The specifics are still in progress and we don't yet know where things will land. Very little time though :) -
@wycats Hold off on correcting the 6to5 behavior to what the spec currently says? -
@thejameskyle@wycats I would love for super() to work, but as it does not today i am concerned about allowing it until the spec settles. -
@thejameskyle@wycats the fact that the spec today requires methods calling super to know their own name, is absolutely obsurd. -
@stefanpenner@thejameskyle I agree and am working on it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.