Improving ECMAScript as a compilation target

[David-Sarah Hopwood]

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> My comfort level in this starts to fall significantly as we get into the
> hit or miss space.  That is the point it suddenly feels like it is trying
> to be (or should be trying to be) a complete meta-object protocol rather
> than just a reification of failed property accesses. The former is
> interesting but I think it is much harder to justify, design, and efficiently
> implement than the latter.

I disagree strongly. Splitting the handlers into "always" and "missing"
versions is only a little more complex to specify, implement, and
understand. The semantics that would be obtained by doing this are
perfectly clear AFAICS.

Without this functionality, the proposal is *much* less useful for the
secure JS subsets.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥