Force-pushed small change to the wording of the commit: "Assuming that a bound Code block..."

....and one more force-push to remove an unnecessary step from the test.

Thanks for this! @connec do you care to take a look?

@connec or @zdenko or @helixbass, anyone familiar with the Class node have a minute to review a one-line fix?

Can you please add a test for class A then fn(b: => ...)?

@vendethiel Sorry, I don't follow: what do you want the test to do?

Make sure the function inside the call inside an object is bound to the class (we shouldn’t attribute a name outside of class properties IIRC so the test should already work).

I'm not totally sure if this is what you meant...?

222067d

If it's not, could you just write the exact code you mean? Sorry that I'm just not getting it.

class Klass
  fn prop: => myvar = @foo

I don't understand what this is doing at all, or what the intent of writing it would be, but OK, test added. :-)

Is myvar supposed to be 1 after this...?

There was an old bug where we considered object properties outside of the class top-level and gave them names, just adding a test.

So @vendethiel is this okay to merge?

LGTM

Thanks @brewingcode!

You're welcome!