Improving ECMAScript as a compilation target
Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com
Wed May 6 08:07:39 PDT 2009
I don't think there is any disagreement that obj.prop() is the baseline use case for catchalls that must be supported. The original context of Brendan's comment was more about whether a handler was needed for obj() in addition to obj.prop().
>From: William Edney [mailto:bedney at technicalpursuit.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:16 AM
>To: Brendan Eich
>Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock; es-discuss Steen
>Subject: Re: Improving ECMAScript as a compilation target
>On May 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> But obj.prop() is worth a catchall, this is the popular
>> __noSuchMethod__ case, so that one does not have to create a method
>> for each value of 'prop' and retain it in obj under that name. The
>> call can be forwarded without any proxy or cloned method.
>Indeed. As the original you-know-what disturber that got the whole
>__noSuchMethod__ ball rolling, I would argue that having to do so
>would dilute almost all of the value. It is precisely because
>__noSuchMethod__ is a catch *all*, for known and unknown properties
>(especially important in a language where new properties can be
>introduced on-the-fly), that makes it so valuable.
More information about the es-discuss