Allow super in methods with dynamic names #3785
Conversation
|
Since class A
@a = -> superis allowed, and the static method compiles to A.a = function() {
return A.__super__.constructor.a.apply(this, arguments);
};shouldn’t A.a = -> superbe allowed too, and compile to the same thing? This would allow: # class style
class A extends B
@a: -> super
a: -> super
# classic style
A = ->
A extends B
A.a = -> super # currently an error
A::a = -> super |
| @@ -2296,3 +2303,10 @@ unfoldSoak = (o, parent, name) -> | |||
| parent[name] = ifn.body | |||
| ifn.body = new Value parent | |||
| ifn | |||
|
|
|||
| # Check if `.prop` or `["prop"]` is equal to `property`. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oops, this comment is wrong.
|
I’ve fixed the bad comment now. |
|
My proposal above might not be a good idea, because then A['prototype'].a = -> superand prototype = 'prototype'
A[prototype].a = -> superwould compile to different things, which might be confusing. An error message in the latter case might be preferable. |
|
Fixed merge conflict. |
|
I’ve removed the code to allow
In other words, nothing controversial. This should make it easier to merge, I think. |
|
Rebase for a clean merge, and we'll merge? |
As discussed in jashkenas#3039 (comment). This is the first step to implement dynamic object literal keys (see jashkenas#3597). This also fixes jashkenas#1392. In short, `super` is now allowed: # in class definitions: class A instanceMethod: -> super @staticmethod: -> super @staticMethod2 = -> super # in assignment where the next to last access is 'prototype': A::m = -> super A.prototype.m = -> super a.b()[5]::m = -> super A::[x()] = -> super class B @::m = -> super
|
Rebased. |
|
Merged. |
Allow super in methods with dynamic names
|
Bravo on killing off that nasty METHOD_DEF, by the way. |
As discussed in #3039 (comment).
This is the first step to implement dynamic object literal keys (see #3597).
This also fixes #1392.
In short,
superis now allowed: