"controller as" vs isolate scope

Question

I'd like to use the 'controllerAs' option in my directives. Let me cite the reasoning from "An AngularJS Style Guide for Closure Users at Google":

Why? Putting methods and properties directly onto the controller, instead of building up a scope object, fits better with the Google Closure class style. Additionally, using 'controller as' makes it obvious which controller you are accessing when multiple controllers apply to an element. Since there is always a '.' in the bindings, you don't have to worry about prototypal inheritance masking primitives.

But I can see an issue with using this approach if the directive has isolate scope bindings.

angular.module('cmw').directive('fooWidget', function() {
    return {
        controller: function() {
            this.qux = '123';
        },
        controllerAs: 'fooWidget',
        scope: {
            bar: '='
        },
        template: ' {{fooWidget.qux}}  {{bar}} '
    };
});

In this case, the bar property is attached to the scope, not to the controller, which results in a confusing inconsistent situation where different properties should be looked for in different places. What is the 'official' recommended way to work around this?

UPDATE: see the GitHub issue about this.

Answer 1

This was resolved in Angular 1.3 by adding the bindToController property to the directive API.