A few arrow function specification issues

Brandon Benvie brandon at brandonbenvie.com
Mon Apr 23 10:18:25 PDT 2012

> > 6) Do arrow functions need to have per instance "caller" and "arguments"
> poison pill properties?
> >
> > I propose no, because they are a new feature. But we can include a NOTE
> warning against providing their non-standard legacy implementation.
> For simplicity and uniformity, I'd keep the same semantics as for
> ordinary functions. Don't special-case if there is no strong reason to
> do so.

Can arrow functions just not have arguments, caller, and name at all? I
have to say, it's really annoying having to special case these properties
when trying to create function proxies that are mostly virtual, as they are
non-configurable, non-writable, and own properties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120423/543e4cd5/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list