Sorry, I don’t understand how. [[boundFunctions]] is not readable from the
script itself, only from the UA.
To retreive an element from [[boundFunctions]] you need the original function
used to create it. If you’ve recieved an instance to that function, you already
have a communication channel, right? Or am I missing something?
From: Mark S. Miller
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 5:53 PM
To: François REMY
Cc: Brendan Eich ; Andrea Giammarchi ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Improving Function.prototype.bind
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:29 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Such an implementation would be very slow and not efficient, because
searching for a key in the "boundFunctions" weakmap would take time. It can be
a polyfill solution but a new implementation need something better.
I think the solution would be to create an "invisible" [[boundFunctions]]
property for all objects containing a dictionnary<weak<function>,
weak<boundFunction>> of already-bound functions on the object. The
implementation of bind would then be :
- if objToBind is not a reference, create a new boundFunction and return it.
- if objToBind.[[boundFunctions]] don't exist, create it.
- else, check if it contains a key for functionToBind //when you are
processing the dictionnary, remove obsolete entries you may find
- if yes, check if the weak reference is alive
- if yes, returns the boundFunction
- create a new boundFunction and store it into objToBind.[[boundFunctions]]
- return the newly created boundFunction
Would that be possible?
No, for the same reason. The mutable state you hung off this internal property
creates an ambient communications channel.
François
-----Message d'origine----- From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:22 AM
To: Andrea Giammarchi
Cc: Axel Rauschmayer ; François REMY ; es-discuss
Subject: Re: Improving Function.prototype.bind
On Jan 5, 2012, at 4:47 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Guys, by any chance we can go back into the topic?
You'll have to polyfill Function.prototype.bind in the current world of
pre-ES5 browsers. Why not then go on to wrap it in a memoizing version that
uses a WeakMap if available (emulated with strong keys/values array-based
implementation if not)?
If you need this machinery, it's all doable. If we should evolve a Harmony
bind or betterBind based on your experience and others, we can do that.
Right now the lack of memoization is not a burning issue, from what I hear.
You've raised it, I think for the first time on es-discuss.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Cheers,
--MarkM
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
