July TC39 meeting notes, day 1

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Fri Jul 29 19:57:56 PDT 2011

On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:

> Thanks, you caught a blatant inconsistency in our reasoning. We used Sean's message (linked above) as a reason to remove receiver, that

("but" at the end of the above line instead of "that", of course.)

> Sean wrote that message assuming both proxy and receiver would be parameters to get and set traps. Sean demonstrated that the two parameters would always have the same value, ergo only one was needed, and since at that time, proxy was considered important to keep (and add to all traps), receiver fell under the ax.
> But as noted higher above, at this week's meeting, we rejected adding proxy to all traps, including get and set. Therefore we must keep the receiver parameter of those two traps, for the reasons you give. Thanks again!

The good news: the proxy traps as proposed are unchanged. Hats off to Tom and Mark for nailing that API and minimizing its parameterization!

Proxies have two prototype implementations now: Firefox since 4, and now V8 (http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=8733) -- not sure when that shows up under a flag in Chrome canaries, someone from Google will know.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110729/9a0ac1eb/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list