On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:39 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:24 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:37 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
I also don't see a problem with David-Sarah's suggestion of
forbidding
host objects from having [[Class]] "Function". Most places in
the
spec
care only about whether something is callable (has a [[Call]]
property), not whether it has [[Class]] "Function".
It seems arbitrary to me that functions implemented in native
code
("internal functions" in ECMA-262 terms)
There's no such thing as an "internal function", in ECMA-262 terms.
You presumably meant "callable host objects" here.
No. See "10.1.1 Function Objects" in ECMA-262 3rd edition.
Yes, I corrected this in a follow-up. But internal functions by that
definition are native Function objects, so they are not relevant to
the argument about host objects. They only differ from non-internal
Function objects by having a [[Call]] method that executes non-
ECMAScript
code, and by being excluded from the discussion of Execution
Contexts in
chapter 10.
If all non-ECMAScript-coded methods in the DOM, or other add-on
interfaces, can be Native internal functions rather than Host objects,
even if they have behavior that does not match any predefined native
Function, then I am not sure what a requirement for Host objects not
to have [[Class]] "Function" would achieve.
Regards,
Maciej
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
