Yes, please don't special case for-of handling, it's nicely expressed in
terms of other concepts.
On Sunday, 25 September 2016, saam barati wrote:
> It seems like Jordan's suggestion is what you want then.
>
> - Saam
>
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Tycho Grouwstra > wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> T
It seems like Jordan's suggestion is what you want then.
- Saam
> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:54 PM, Tycho Grouwstra wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> To elaborate a bit, what I'm trying to do is use Proxy so as to enable
> FSM-like DSLs, essentially having one Proxy type represent the current
> 'state'
Thank you.
To elaborate a bit, what I'm trying to do is use Proxy so as to enable
FSM-like DSLs, essentially having one Proxy type represent the current
'state' dictating what DSL you're in, one property access choosing to
either yield a new proxied object, yielding an unwrapped version, or one
wr
The purpose of the iterator protocol is to be flexible and to work well with
custom defined iterators. for...of is more or less sugar around the iterator
protocol. Not sure why you even need a Proxy to easily customize for...of
behavior for arbitrary objects.
More documentation on the protocol
Does a trap for `[[Get]]` on `Symbol.iterator` not provide you the ability
to intercept iteration by returning a custom function?
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:34 PM, Tycho Grouwstra
wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding support for an iteration trap handler for
> Proxy, fleshing out the list of [curr
I'd like to propose adding support for an iteration trap handler for Proxy,
fleshing out the list of [currently supported Proxy handlers](
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Proxy#Methods_of_the_handler_object
).
I think Proxy is among the most powerful
6 matches
Mail list logo
