@ChristophBuck @RitaWerner @sinchens_ @sl007

#Funfact: (#Amnestie-)Abgaben und #Beschlagnahmen werden nie geschreddert sondern #versteigert!

• Deshalb rate ich auch #Waffenerbe|n diese durch nen (zugelassenen!) #Händler abzuverkaufen zu lassen, denn sonst ist's effektiv ne #Spende an den #Staat!

@tbroyer Ah you're right, I didn't realize the arrow function also inherited the `class` scope as well. Clearly I don't understand how `this` works either!

I'd still argue that needing arrow syntax over method syntax is a problem for the same reason, it shouldn't be necessary to do that.

Also doesn't `this.#handler = this.#handler.bind(this)` still create an instance property? I don't see how that can be avoided here.

@develwithoutacause Why do you `bind(this)` an arrow function? Doesn't it already has the correct `this` by virtue of just being an arrow function?

(note however that this creates an instance property, contrary to a method, that exists on the prototype; an alternative is to `this.#handler = this.#handler.bind(this);` in the constructor)

The best pattern I've found for event listeners is effectively:

```javascript
class MyListener {
#handler = (() => {
// Has appropriate `this`.
}).bind(this);

start() {
window.addEventListener('something', this.#handler);
}

stop() {
window.removeEventListener('something', this.#handler);
}
}
```

I really hate that I _have_ to do that. It's incredibly confusing for anyone who doesn't understand `this` (which is most of the community) and creates a new function for each class instance.

Very much looking forward to an `@bound` decorator which does this more ergonomically.