| 18:14 | <TabAtkins> | No it's not; you need to write arr.map(obj::obj.method) |
| 18:15 | <TabAtkins> | If you've already extracted the method into a variable, you can write the simpler way, but that's not the case I usually run into. |
| 18:57 | <ljharb> | oh, right, that only works if method is extracted. maybe i was thinking of the original bind operator proposal where it'd be ::obj.method |
| 19:00 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah, that's a persistent confusion for me as well. ^_^ |
| 19:01 | <TabAtkins> | (The fact that you have to write obj::obj.method for what would, I suspect, be a pretty major use-case is, to me, a pretty bad strike against the current bind-this proposal.) |
| 19:04 | <ljharb> | hm, i'm not sure it would be that major tho |
| 19:05 | <ljharb> | the use cases are mostly about changing the receiver, and obj.method.bind(obj) is separate from that |
| 19:08 | <TabAtkins> | The stated use-cases are mostly about that, yes, because hard-binding the existing receiver is inconvenient in the current syntax so of course it's not emphasizing that use-case. ^_^ |
| 19:41 | <ljharb> | i really don't think it's all that important tho. typically it comes up on a class method, and the class can do foo = this.foo.bind(this) as a class field (or a @bind decorator) - how often does a consumer of the class need to do that? |
| 20:25 | <TabAtkins> | I've wanted to map a method across an array multiple times in my past code. It's no stranger than mapping a free function. |
| 21:05 | <jschoi> | Deadline for plenary is soon. I plan to present the dataflow-proposal diagram for a thirty-minute discussion, if that seems good to others here. |
| 21:23 | <TabAtkins> | +1 |
| 21:23 | <TabAtkins> | would you like to augment it with call-this? |
| 22:50 | <sarahghp> | Deadline for plenary is soon. I plan to present the dataflow-proposal diagram for a thirty-minute discussion, if that seems good to others here. |
| 23:02 | <jschoi> | would you like to augment it with call-this? |
| 23:02 | <jschoi> | Do you think people will want to discuss longer? |
| 23:02 | <TabAtkins> | yeah i don't think we should |