custom proto arg for Proxy.createFunction?

David Herman dherman at
Wed Feb 23 14:54:50 PST 2011

> With your optional argument, I see a second solution that could be
> consistent. The prototype chain could contain the provided prototype
> then Function.prototype ("obj --> proto --> Function.prototype -->
> null"  as opposed to your proposition which is: "obj --> proto --> null"
> ). Hence, there would be no need to enforce anything: instanceof would
> naturally find Function.prototype in the chain and function proxies
> would still be functions.

I don't quite see how that works; prototype inheritance is inherently singly-linked. If the user specifies a prototype object, it already has its own single prototype -- and we certainly aren't going to spec something that *mutates* its existing prototype.

I suppose you could have some sort of multiple inheritance chain semantics that says "follow this chain to the end, then when you're done, here's another chain." But that seems kind of crazy.

You could spec something a bit more ad hoc, just for the purposes of inheritance: that no matter what object the user provides, `instanceof' always says true for Function.prototype as well. I don't have a concrete argument against it, but it still looks funny to me.

The simple instanceof check seems simpler and reasonably intuitive.

> With your solution, by removing Function.prototype from the chain, proxy
> functions couldn't be .call()-ed or .apply()-ed

That's already true, even without my extension:

    js> var proxy = Proxy.createFunction({}, function(){}, function(){})
    typein:11: TypeError: getPropertyDescriptor is not a function

Now, you can still do:

    js>, this)

But that would continue to be true with my extension as well.


More information about the es-discuss mailing list