On Sep 10, 2008, at 6:24 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >> Mark S. Miller wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:49 AM, Brendan Eich >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I'm willing to rename Function.apply, but let's talk some more >>>> about the >>>> better name, and about why it matters. >> >> Actually now that I think about it, there is an easy fix: >> >> Function.apply = <original Function.prototype.apply>; >> >> Then use Function.apply.call(callable, thisobj, argsarray). > > I should have said that this is assuming the adoption of my other > proposal > in which static methods of Function (for example) are non-Writable and > non-Configurable.
Oh, I thought you were dodging the overwrite issue. But your proposal is wildly incompatible and no browser implementor involved in TC39 will ship it (I predict, and aver on behalf of Mozilla, having tried once for all standard constructors). So where does that leave us? /be _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
