Le 04/08/2012 16:32, Mark Miller a écrit :
On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:58 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
In the end, revokability can be implemented, but the nice GC property that
should come along can only be implemented if the revokable proxy does not
support invariant checking. Regardless, it still requires to delete all
configurable properties of the dummy target on revokation, which may take some
time.
As we've seen with the Hueyfix, having enabling GC thanks to revokation
sometimes yields tremendously excellent results (whether the properties of the
GC'ed objects are configurable or not, this should not matter). I think it
justifies language-level revokability.
I see you point. This gc issue surprises me.
It really was a non-obvious loss in the switch from the previous design
to direct proxies.
I agree it seems serious. I hate to complexify the proxy design yet further,
but I don't see how a library could workaround this restiction otherwise.Other
than the additional complexity, which is a significant argument against, what
other arguments are there against enabling a proxy to drop its target?
I only have an additional argument in favor. Transferables (and private
names?) will require the implementation of objects which will throw when
touched. Also, Hueyfix included DeadObjectProxies [1].
So it seems JS impls that the implementation cost of this feature is
mostly already paid.
David
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/cc5254f9825f#l7.13
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
