July TC39 meeting notes, day 1
kpreid at google.com
Tue Aug 9 10:25:35 PDT 2011
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 01:17, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> On 8 August 2011 18:46, Kevin Reid <kpreid at google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 08:50, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
>>> Arguably, making a proxy trap return getters/setters seems a somewhat
>>> pointless use case anyway. But nevertheless we need to have some
>>> reasonable semantics for it.
>> It allows a proxy to pretend to be an object which supports
>> Object.defineOwnProperty normally.
>> It allows a proxy to emulate, or wrap, an ordinary object which
>> happens to have some accessor properties, while still being
>> transparent to reflection (which I understand is one of the goals of
>> the proxy facility).
> Sure, but is that necessarily something that the _default_ traps have
> to be able to mimic? There is no problem programming it up yourself if
> you want it.
Are you proposing a revised division of fundamental vs. derived traps?
If not, what do you propose the default derived get or set trap do in
the event that it gets an accessor property descriptor in response to
More information about the es-discuss