On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > So really the only options are: > > * don’t say anything about [[Call]], and thus allow typeof to return > 'object' or 'function',
I don't believe that's a real option. > * mandate that [[Call]] is not implemented, and thus require typeof > to return 'object', or > > * mandate that [[Call]] is implemented (and then say what calling the > function should do), thus requiring typeof to return 'function'. Those are two possible options. There's also a third option: allow interfaces to define [[Call]] the same way you allow them to define [[Construct]], thus making this vary on a per-interface basis. > Requiring that [[Call]] be implemented but not saying what its actual > behaviour should be is a bit strange, I think. I agree that that is not an option either. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
