I've not read the spec, and I've never written full library-type code, so feel free to vote this down. Personally, I'd say the described behaviour made sense.

I've not read the spec, and I've never written full library-type code, so feel free to vote this down. Personally, I'd say the described behaviour made sense. If I bound a function, I'd want its `this` to remain bound, regardless of how I called it. That'w what one uses `.bind()` for. It seems counter-intuitive, to me, that one might want to explicitly `.bind()` something and then use it as if it had never been bound. In that case I'd `.call()` the original function with the new content object, rather than `.call()` the bound one.