Bait taken: Arguments about arguments

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Jan 15 00:46:55 PST 2009


On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>  
> wrote:
>
> When in doubt, use brute force. ES3 already did. Quoting from its  
> spec for Function.prototype.apply:
>
> 15.3.4.3 Function.prototype.apply (thisArg, argArray)
> [...] Otherwise, if argArray is neither an array nor an arguments  
> object (see section 10.1.8), a TypeError exception is thrown. If  
> argArray is either an array or an arguments object, the function is  
> passed the (ToUint32(argArray.length)) arguments argArray[0],  
> argArray[1], …, argArray[ToUint32(argArray.length)–1]. [...]
>
> Yes, this is the spec text I quoted as well. But I don't understand  
> it or your "use brute force" answer.

Sorry, didn't mean to rehash.


> How does Function.prototype.apply determine that argArray is an  
> arguments object?

ES1-3 leave this unspecified. But they talk about "an arguments object  
[being] created" (10.1.8), etc. and it's easy enough to implement the  
spec -- there are many implementations. SpiderMonkey uses a distinct  
class whose name is "Object", to satisfy what is specified  
([[Prototype]] is the original Object.prototype value). Do we need  
really need to say more?


> We need to do something, since as it stands the operational spec is  
> unimplementable in terms of the specified semantic state.


The spec has a domain of discourse that includes "an arguments  
object". It's implementable without error. Sure, we could add another  
internal property to avoid this appeal to an unspecified way of  
distinguish arguments objects from all other objects. Again I'm loath  
to over-invest.

/be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20090115/fa65e146/attachment.html>


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list