Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

Le 03/07/2011 22:49, Mark S. Miller a écrit : > [+stay] > > I'd rather have a bug filed whose resolution we can postpone deciding. > I'll file it later today. Ok. cc me (bru...@enseirb.fr), please. > The reason this is more important than it may appear is that there are > at least two other proxy

Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

[+stay] I'd rather have a bug filed whose resolution we can postpone deciding. I'll file it later today. The reason this is more important than it may appear is that there are at least two other proxy implementations in progress that are probably using FF as a reference, perhaps modulo the filed F

Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

Le 03/07/2011 21:32, Mark S. Miller a écrit : > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, David Bruant > wrote: > > Le 03/07/2011 14:59, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit : > > As a follow-up to the fixed properties proposal: > > > > I created a prototype implementati

Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:07 AM, David Bruant wrote: > Le 03/07/2011 14:59, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit : > > As a follow-up to the fixed properties proposal: > > > > I created a prototype implementation of fixed properties on top of the > > existing Proxy API. The idea is to wrap an existing proxy ha

Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

Le 03/07/2011 14:59, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit : > As a follow-up to the fixed properties proposal: > > I created a prototype implementation of fixed properties on top of the > existing Proxy API. The idea is to wrap an existing proxy handler in a > FixedHandler. This FixedHandler does the bookkeeping

Re: Minor type confusion in proxies proposal?

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Bypassing [[DefineOwnProperty]] in Object.defineProperty for proxies could > work. It would also totally bypass the question of how non-standard > attributes are identified or need to be copied, as the property descriptor > a

Re: Writing a desktop app in JavaScript?

Nevertheless, IMO this list is mostly for ES design. Practical JS application and tools better discuss in e.g. jsmentors list. Dmitry. On 03.07.2011 20:27, Axel Rauschmayer wrote: I hope the following question is not too out of place on this mailing list: JavaScript would really profit from a

Writing a desktop app in JavaScript?

I hope the following question is not too out of place on this mailing list: JavaScript would really profit from a simple environment for writing desktop applications, especially for tasks that you would normally use shell scripts for. I like that such an environment would make it incredibly easy

Re: [Harmony proxies] Non-configurable properties: fixed properties VS trap all with invariants enforcement

As a follow-up to the fixed properties proposal: I created a prototype implementation of fixed properties on top of the existing Proxy API. The idea is to wrap an existing proxy handler in a FixedHandler. This FixedHandler does the bookkeeping and checking to ensure that the wrapped handler doesn'

Re: Minor type confusion in proxies proposal?

Hi Andreas, Bypassing [[DefineOwnProperty]] in Object.defineProperty for proxies could work. It would also totally bypass the question of how non-standard attributes are identified or need to be copied, as the property descriptor argument to Object.defineProperty can be passed directly to the trap