Yes, now we're heading in the right direction.
The problem with something like `Symbol.propertyAccess` is that this might lead
to a flood of new well-known Symbols.
Conceptually, `Symbol.propertyAccess` sounds like it should have been a `Proxy`
trap, anyway.
Here's an more general idea: Why not allow users to set a derived class for
literals via well-known Symbols?
Thus, users could provide custom implementations for `RegExp`, `Array`,
`Object` (…) literals, as long as the value points to a derived class.
We could even introduce negative array indices in a way that doesn't break the
web like this:
```js
[1, 2, 3][-1]; // undefined
Array[Symbol.implementation] = MyArray;
[1, 2, 3][-1]; // 3
Array[Symbol.implementation] = 3; // TypeError: Array implementations must
extend Array (→ Array.isPrototypeOf(Number(3)) is false)
```
On Montag, 18. April 2016 10:47:24 CEST /#!/JoePea wrote:
> But, can
>
> ```js
> let a = [1,2,3]
> ```
>
> create a new MyArray? Maybe, instead of having negative indices by
> default (which breaks some backwards compatibility) we can introduce a
> symbol for overriding property access? Something like
>
> ```js
> Array.prototype[Symbol.propertyAccess] = function(index) {
> if (index < 0) ...
> else ...
> }
> ```
>
> ? Just an idea; I'm not sure if that's a good use for Symbols. We
> could then easily add this helper code to a given app.
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:25 AM, kdex <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I don't see a good reason why to mangle with this.
> > Note that you can achieve this behavior without breaking backwards
> > compatibility with ES6 Proxies:
> >
> > ```js
> > class MyArray extends Array {
> > constructor(...args) {
> > super(...args);
> > function computeProperty(target, property) {
> > const index = +property;
> > return index < 0 ? String(target.length + index) :
> > property;
> > }
> > return new Proxy(this, {
> > get(target, property, receiver) {
> > return Reflect.get(target,
> > computeProperty(target, property), receiver);
> > },
> > set(target, property, receiver) {
> > return Reflect.set(target,
> > computeProperty(target, property), receiver);
> > }
> > });
> > }
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > On Montag, 18. April 2016 09:59:15 CEST /#!/JoePea wrote:
> >> Backwards compatibility has been broken before. I don't think this one
> >> is too bad of a breakage.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:48 PM, Biju <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > On 17 April 2016 at 17:29, Frankie Bagnardi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> That would break backward compatibility;
> >> >>
> >> >> ```js
> >> >> var a = ['a'];
> >> >> a['-1'] = 'test';
> >> >> Object.keys(a) // ['0', '-1']
> >> >> ```
> >> >
> >> > Do we have statistics how many sties depend on that?
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > es-discuss mailing list
> >> > [email protected]
> >> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> es-discuss mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > es-discuss mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
