no_unnecessary_fat_arrows: function contains super

[charlierudolph]

If you have a function which uses super, the fat arrow is necessary but the rule tells you to remove it.

[swang]

Can you explain with some code? I am assuming you are writing inside an instance function (otherwise CS would complain) and AFAIK you don't need fat arrows to call super .

[charlierudolph]

class A extends B
  method: ->
    asyncFn ->
      super() 

method gets compiled to

A.prototype.method = function() {
  return asyncFn(function() {
    return A.__super__.method.call(this);
  });
};

Since this is used, looks like the fat arrow is needed

[swang]

Yeah seems like a bug. I'm guessing if super is called somewhere you need to make sure fat arrows are propagated back up to the main func. I'm not intimately familiar with this rule/code so it may take me some time to find a solution. PRs accepted.

[AsaAyers]

It might be worth filing an issue in coffeescript to see if this is really the intended behavior. I can't see how that code could ever turn out well without fat arrows

[charlierudolph]

Sorry this is already supported. A team member must have been using an out of date coffeelint

[swang]

👍 On a related note, there is an issue about this in jashkenas/coffeescript#1606