callable objects ?

Brendan Eich brendan at
Wed Apr 18 10:48:44 PDT 2012

Yes, I thought of that -- currently o() throws, so in the best case, 
there's no impediment to relaxing things to allow o() to call. In the 
worst case, code that caught or counted on the exception somehow might 

Mainly the own-only restriction seems less-good compared to how, e.g. 
proxy traps or accessors are found, via full prototype-based delegation. 
Are some of these proposed and novel base-level traps better off 
own-only, in spite of this general rule?


David Bruant wrote:
> Le 18/04/2012 17:14, Brendan Eich a écrit :
>> David Bruant wrote:
>>>> Change 11.2.3 "Function Calls" to use @call not [[Call]], passing
>>>> the /thisValue/ and /argList/ according to the
>>>> convention: (thisValue, ...argList).
>>> @call as own property only or is it inherited as well?
>> I see no reason to require own.
> After giving some more thoughts:
>      function f(){
>          return 12;
>      }
>      var o = Object.create(f);
>      o();
> Currently this throws a TypeError (o isn't a function). If the @call
> property was inherited, the inherited @call would be called (and no
> error would be thrown).
> I don't know to what extent it matters, but it's worth noting there
> would be this difference.
> David
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at

More information about the es-discuss mailing list