(sorry, was in a small vacation, can't answer earlier)
Yes, I'm perfectly aware about what host objects may do (there is even
wide-spread phrase in JS community: do not trust to host objects, they can
do almost anything).
From this viewpoint, if to treat these proxies as host objects, then in
This is almost the exact behavior I was talking about ...
Object.withNoSuchMethod = function withNoSuchMethod(obj, __noSuchMethod__) {
var cachedInvokes = {};
return Proxy.create({
get: function (receiver, name) {
return name in obj ?
obj[name] :
On 20.12.2011 17:00, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
- @Tom: Found bugs in DirectProxies.js
Thanks for reporting, but I don't think these are bugs:
1. Properties created via assignment gets `false' value for
descriptor attributes; should be true. E.g. foo.bar = 10, where
`foo' is
Funny implementation :P You did it vice-versa: functional objects _do_
work, but simple calls do not :D
No, not good to depend on `this' value and non-Reference type.
Dmitry.
On 21.12.2011 16:05, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
This is almost the exact behavior I was talking about ...
2011/12/21 Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
On 20.12.2011 17:00, Tom Van Cutsem wrote:
You can (and probably should) advertise a virtual method as
configurable:true.
I can only `configurable: true', but as we said, to fix broken `delete'
operator, we need to treat these
- @Tom: Found bugs in DirectProxies.js
Thanks for reporting, but I don't think these are bugs:
1. Properties created via assignment gets `false' value for descriptor
attributes; should be true. E.g. foo.bar = 10, where `foo' is direct proxy,
makes bar non-configurable
I can't
On 18.12.2011 2:51, Brendan Eich wrote:
From: Dmitry Soshnikovdmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
On 17.12.2011 17:21, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // function, Trollface ;D
is much more
mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:30:47 AM
Subject: Re: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
you don't use apply randomly, you use apply for methods or getters
knowing there is a function there.
__noSuchMethod__ is about NOT HAVING
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // function, Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens everyday - there are non-writable
properties everywhere), than the scenario where I cannot transform
Dmitry, addressing a trap fallback is not a good idea plus the average JS
coder rarely does it ... said that, the moment you are using a method you
already know this exists so you already know the documentation ( or part of
it ) so I don't see much hurt there.
Moreover, the addressing problem is
and about last point, maybe objects that implements noSuchMethod should
return something like unknown via typeof ... just saying, and simply to
differentiate these objects from others where __noSuchMethod__ is not in
place.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Andrea Giammarchi
On 17.12.2011 17:21, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // function, Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens everyday - there are non-writable
properties everywhere),
Yes, good
On 17.12.2011 18:08, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
Dmitry, addressing a trap fallback is not a good idea plus the average
JS coder rarely does it ... said that, the moment you are using a
method you already know this exists so you already know the
documentation ( or part of it ) so I don't see much
That's why I proposed first-class phantoms in gist: beasts that typeof
to phantom, ToBoolean to false, ToNumber to 0, are wrapping a
function, [[Call]] calls that function, [[Get]] and [[Prototype]]
delegates to that function ([[Class]] is questionable) and rest does not
work ([[Set]]
From: Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
On 17.12.2011 17:21, Herby Vojčík wrote:
Hello,
from my point the scenario that:
delete lib.toRussianName;
then it still:
typeof lib.toRussianName; // function, Trollface ;D
is much more acceptable (it happens
@mozilla.org
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:48:37 AM
Subject: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
Hi,
Here is the analysis of current noSuchMethod situation implemented via
proxies.
I summarized that never-ending thread from 2010 (
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss
, December 15, 2011 5:48:37 AM
Subject: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
Hi,
Here is the analysis of current noSuchMethod situation implemented via
proxies.
I summarized that never-ending thread from 2010 (
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-October/011929.html
: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
Hi,
Here is the analysis of current noSuchMethod situation implemented via
proxies.
I summarized that never-ending thread from 2010 (
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2010-October/011929.html),
since guys in JS community started to ask why
, December 16, 2011 8:30:47 AM
Subject: Re: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
you don't use apply randomly, you use apply for methods or getters knowing
there is a function there.
__noSuchMethod__ is about NOT HAVING A FUNCTION there and if the property is
not defined apply should
-
From: Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammar...@gmail.com
To: Dmitry Soshnikov dmitry.soshni...@gmail.com
Cc: Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com, es-discuss
es-discuss@mozilla.org
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 8:30:47 AM
Subject: Re: noSuchMethod: funargs + invoke-only-phantoms
you don't
20 matches
Mail list logo
