Is it just me, or is the commit message not quite right when it says:

The current syntax is to prefix the scope name with a '@', like so:
scope: {
"myData": "=someData",
"myString": "@someInterpolation",
"myExpr": "&someExpr"
},
controllerAs: "someCtrl",
bindtoController: true

We'll have to remember that for the changelog

oh, derp. yes, forgot to change that part of the message when the api changed

yeah. there are two issues:

• mention of @
• and bindtoController vs bindToController

am I correct in thinking that the way to make use of this is as follows

• Define isolate scope as usual
• add bindToController: true to directive definition object
• provide a controllerAs property in directive definition object

Something like:

return {
  scope: {
    data: '='
  },
  bindToController: true,
  controller: function() {
    // This will be two-way bound to containing scope
    data = {
      count: 0
    };
  },
  controllerAs: 'ctrl',
  link: function(scope, el, attrs) {
  },
  template: '<button ng-click="ctrl.data.count = ctrl.data.count + 1">Increment</button>'
};

In this case data is not directly accessible on the scope via scope.data but indirectly through the controller which is on the scope like scope.ctrl.data, correct?

That's what I gathered from reading various issues and such, but the changelog merely points to this commit which doesn't summarize the correct/most recent syntax. Seems like a useful feature, thanks for any clarification.

@twhitbeck that is correct.

Yes, the commit message was not correctly updated, I think the documentation site should be okay though. If it's not, please file a bug

@twhitbeck there is one small errror in your example:

controller: function() {
  data = {
    count: 0
  };
},

should be

controller: function() {
  this.data = {
    count: 0
  };
},

oh good eye, I didn't notice that @srigi :) yes, you won't be able to bind to properties in the controller if they're actually in the global object

Would there be any way to not require the controller function? If I just want to use the scope properties in my template, but I have no need of a controller function, with the current implementation, I have to have a controller property (which I assign to angular.noop). Just an extra line of boilerplate that I don't feel is necessary. If there aren't any technical limitations to making the controller optional, I'd be happy to take a stab at a PR.

Perhaps it could be done by adding a || angular.noop to this line but I'm unaware of what would break in this case...

if you don't have a controller, why would you want to use bindToController: true in the first place? o_o

As I said, I want to be able to be consistent in my templates and use controllerAs: 'vm' for all of my directives and routes. This way, every template is using the same controller name and it's easy to switch between templates. Also, if I ever decide to add a controller in the future, I don't have to worry about updating the template to use controllerAs.

Edit: apologies, I wasn't very clear about my reasons in my first comment.

I don't think that really makes sense :(

bindToController is basically the switch you flip to turn on binding to the controller instead of the scope --- so you still have a switch to flip, but it shouldn't be a terrible amount of work

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear:

angular.module('foobar', []).directive('foo', function() {
  return {
    template: '<div>this is bar: {{vm.bar}}</div>'
    scope: {
      bar: '='
    },
    controllerAs: 'vm',
    bindToController: true
  };
});

with a template-only directive (as opposed to one that adds functionality to the element or model), there is no need for a controller. For the above to work, I have to add controller: angular.noop.

Oops, accidentally deleted a comment --- anyways, you could open a feature request for that since it's tiny, but I dunno how I feel about it

Done: #9774