Jason Orendorff wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Brendan Eich<bren...@mozilla.org> wrote:
Your suggestion of the setter checking that the receiving object inherit the
built-in __proto__ before actually doing the "set" is interesting, but it
seems to me that it means every set does a proxy-observable "has" operation.
That's not something we do today -- maybe it's ok to add it -- but it is
also overhead and opportunity for mischief. Or did you have a thought on how
to silently probe for the property descriptor?
Yes, there's actually a nice answer for this. Consider:
// Applying __proto__ setter directly to a proxy
var proto_prop =
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.prototype, "__proto__");
proto_prop.set.call(proxy, {});
// Applying a DOM getter directly to a proxy
var nodeType_prop =
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Node.prototype, "nodeType");
nodeType_prop.get.call(proxy);
The nodeType getter is non-generic; it only works on Nodes. The
__proto__ setter should be "non-generic" too: namely, it should only
work on non-Proxy objects.
As the proxies spec stands, non-generic methods applied to proxies will
just throw TypeError. This is safe.
However, SpiderMonkey C++ proxies already have a mechanism that makes
such calls work transparently by default: the nativeCall hook Jeff
mentioned. ES proxies might or might not gain a similar mechanism. If
they do, the setter call here would be transparently applied to the
target by default. The hypothetical __proto__ property check would
still occur -- on the target, not the proxy.
Ok, thanks -- I buy it. Good work following through on the what-ifs re:
direct proxies, since we may indeed get some kind of more generic
non-generic-nativeCall thing into Harmony (Allen's
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:subclassable-builtins).
Now to get this onto the agenda for next week's meeting!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
