On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: > Agreed, getOwnPropertyNames is way more appropriate if the topic is: use all > ES5 features for mixins too. > > Also, the Nicolas example is potentially disaster prone, not in that specific > form, but in the way a getter with private scope access could be. > > Imagine many objects using that specific object as mixin with that name > getter, if there was a setter too the first one that will use it will > overwrite the returned value for all other objects. > > I think propertie swith getters and setters will cause as many headaches as > objects and arrays in function prototypes did before already but hey, if you > know what you are doing, I believe there's no other solution for "universally > capable mixin method"
I had a proposal for creating accessors that would only over-ride half of an inherited get/set pair: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:object_initialiser_super#super_in_accessor_property_definitions I let it fade away because, 1) it was kind of ugly, and 2) there were other more important things to put energy into. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
