Improving ECMAScript as a compilation target

[William J Edney]

Ah - right.

BTW, I'm just pleased as punch that this is being discussed for  
Harmony - thanks guys!

Cheers,

- Bill (from iPhone)

On May 6, 2009, at 10:07, Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock at microsoft.com 
 > wrote:

> 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().
>
> Allen
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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
>>
>> All -
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> - Bill
>