- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 22:55:45 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20502 --- Comment #6 from Chris Wilson <cwilso@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #5) > > "Can't you easily set this up by binding the message handler (onmessage or > > addEventHandler function)?" Binding is on the function object, irrelevant > > of onmessage or addEventHandler. > > Maybe I'm not getting what you mean here. Are you literally saying use > .bind()? Or something else? Yes, calling .bind. port.addEventListener( "message", myhandler.bind( myobj ) ); > Oh, my example was supposed to be all bad - I'll see if I can come up with a > real usage scenario as I just made that on up on the spot. In any case, I > think we might be misunderstanding each other, but I can understand the need > for a good justification to adding this. > > I might need a stronger use case. At the moment, this might just fall into > the "nice to have" category. I'm not fundamentally opposed, just want to ensure we have strong justification. > I'll also be honest: I didn't know that "this" would become the port itself > before Jussi mentioned it. It makes sense, but I wonder if many developers > know about that. Hmm, noted. Have to fix that in my shim, I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2012 22:55:46 UTC