But what the method resolves to could be very different in the case of an inherited hierarchy, or where a base function is overridden in a child class. It has never been a difficulty even with colossal codebases that the function that it is resolved to might be elsewhere, in a child. If anything, it's one of the great strengths of the language.
The m_ syntax is kind of ugly but adding a this-> every time seems foolish, given that either the member is protected or public if you're modifying it in a base class. In the case of complex inheritance, you might be running into problems with ambiguity of names anyway.
m_variable (or a sensible member naming convention, e.g. a prefix) helps to distinguish between local variables, which is important in complicated classes/functions.
This proposed # for JavaScript looks insane, coming from the well-established, tried, and tested (and perfectly functional and useful) systems found in C++, Java and C#. It's like it's adopting a terrible syntax in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.
The m_ syntax is kind of ugly but adding a this-> every time seems foolish, given that either the member is protected or public if you're modifying it in a base class. In the case of complex inheritance, you might be running into problems with ambiguity of names anyway.
m_variable (or a sensible member naming convention, e.g. a prefix) helps to distinguish between local variables, which is important in complicated classes/functions.
This proposed # for JavaScript looks insane, coming from the well-established, tried, and tested (and perfectly functional and useful) systems found in C++, Java and C#. It's like it's adopting a terrible syntax in order to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Perhaps I am misunderstanding.