And in general, the main use case for proxies is to emulate host
objects. If there is a language construct that helps separating the two
cases, we're going against this use case.
David
Le 13/07/2011 10:26, Andreas Gal a écrit :
I really don't think IsProxy is a good idea. It can lead to subtle
bugs depending on whether an object is a DOM node, or a wrapper around
a DOM node (or whether the embedding uses a proxy to implement DOM
nodes or not). In Firefox we plan on making some DOM nodes proxies for
example, but not others. I really don't think there is value in
exposing this to programmers.
Andreas
On Jul 13, 2011, at 1:23 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
Perhaps Proxy.isProxy was used merely as an example, but wasn't the
consensus that Proxy.isProxy is not needed? Dave pointed out that it
breaks transparent virtualization. Also, there is Object.isExtensible
which always returns |true| for (trapping) proxies. That means we
already have "half" of Proxy.isProxy without exposing proxies: if
!Object.isExtensible(obj), obj is guaranteed not to be a proxy.
Cheers,
Tom
2011/7/9 Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.com <mailto:bren...@mozilla.com>>
Also the Proxy.isTrapping, which in recent threads has been
proposed to be renamed to Proxy.isProxy or Object.isProxy.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
