On Jul 14, 2011, at 10:38 AM, David Bruant wrote: >> In all the cases I can think of, where we want precisely the behavior of an >> array, why not just use an array? > Of course an array should be used. I think that the current question is > rather "can proxies as currently defined can fully emulate arrays?". Being > able to fully emulate arrays sounds like an "easy" use case.
I agree, and Allen is on the record here too. Fixing an array-proxy to an array could be enough for real-world use-cases, so this may be not a burning practical issue. Indeed it verges on Principle. But it's a good one, and I think we should have a goal (rather than a principle) for cleanly proxying arrays, including non-extensible ones. If this goal is met by saying fixing an array proxy always results in the instance becoming a fixed Array, that could be good enough. I do not think we should say "fix to a non-extensbile object with a length accessor" while we at the same time carefully spec Array length as a data property, precisely to ensure inter-operation. That seems to be telling JS implementors one thing, and (possibly an overlapping group) proxy users another. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
