In my opinion, the fundamental record type we build our JS on should be getting dumber, not smarter. It feels inappropriate to be piling more difficult-to-reason-about mechanisms on top before reeling in exotic host objects. With Proxy out of the bag, I'm not so hopeful for the humble Object anymore.
On Tuesday, 3 November 2015, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure thing, meanwhile polymer or other libraries need to pollute getters > and setters and the rest of the web have been trying to polyfill it for at > least 6 years now * > > The reason is not widely "abused" is that it never made it as standard and > as it is feels like an outdated spec. Proxy would give us that and much > more, unfortunately proxies do not play so well cross environment. For > instance, I've tried to use them in GJS ( Gtk+3 JavaScript bindings ) and > while Object.prototype.watch always works, proxied GObjects fail to be used > like these were just GObjects. > > That might be a specific env problem though, but having a way to watch > properties, specially in two ways bindings scenarios, is a very needed > common thing. > As example, in DOMClass I'm replacing native getters/setters to be > notified about changes, it doesn't feel right even if it works. > > All this is over-off-topic though, so I might just stop. > > Best Regards > > > > * just few examples since 2009 > https://gist.github.com/eligrey/384583 > https://gist.github.com/adriengibrat/b0ee333dc1b058a22b66 > question in SO > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1029241/javascript-object-watch-for-all-browsers > http://deploytonenyures.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/objectwatch-polyfill.html > > https://code.google.com/p/chtor/source/browse/chtor/chrome/js/object-watch.js?spec=svn2c00820d48169bb678a00447e295fb31dcf448ed&r=2c00820d48169bb678a00447e295fb31dcf448ed > > yes, I've done that too > in 2009 > http://webreflection.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/internet-explorer-object-watch.html > and recently https://gist.github.com/WebReflection/366dc38574dc526308b5 > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bzbar...@mit.edu');>> wrote: > >> On 11/2/15 4:55 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote: >> >>> I agree with Benoit and I think there is a reason >>> `Object.prototype.watch` is still in Firefox and won't go away any time >>> soon >>> >> >> As far as I know the only reason it's there and hasn't been removed is >> because it's used to implement debugger watchpoints [1]. And the only >> reason it's web-exposed is because SpiderMonkey has not prioritized being >> able to expose APIs to privileged code but not the web (something that >> think should get fixed). >> >> -Boris >> >> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=934669 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','es-discuss@mozilla.org');> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
