Thank you Allen for the references and analysis. It's interesting that Gilad
argues resolution should be lexical followed by inheritance to avoid
'unanticipated name capture' that may exist within the inheritance chain.
Probably even less of an option given backward compatibility requirements.
On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Kam Kasravi wrote:
> How reasonable would it be to treat 'this' in a similar way that the
> prototype chain is referenced when resolving identifiers? I realize there
> would be ambiguity for like named identifiers but that problem exists now...
> In Allen's first
On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:04 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 31/03/2011 01:37, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
>>
>>
> Is there already a deadline for when proxies have to/should/may be frozen?
Not clear yet. We probably have about a year to polish them in TC39. But,
sooner is better, especially if we
How reasonable would it be to treat 'this' in a similar way that the prototype
chain is referenced when resolving identifiers? I realize there would be
ambiguity for like named identifiers but that problem exists now... In Allen's
first example this.handleClick(this,e) would not be resolved with
Le 31/03/2011 01:37, Allen Wirfs-Brock a écrit :
> David,
>
> That wiki page and the working document it links to was intended to
> stir up exactly these sorts of questions. There are recurring
> discussions about various situations where it may be useful to
> categorize ECMAScript objects and ho
Hi,
First, I'd like to say that I'm glad proxy-related issues have been
discussed during the last TC-39 meeting and that all have found an
agreement.
Then I have a something to say on
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:handler_access_to_proxy
Quoting relevant parts:
"Andreas: experim
6 matches
Mail list logo
