A few arrow function specification issues
brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Apr 23 11:02:47 PDT 2012
Brandon Benvie wrote:
> > 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
> 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?
Agreed on it being better to leave these off. Do not poison new ground.
> 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.
This seems like an issue for direct proxies that we should discuss in a
separate thread. Apologies if I already missed it.
More information about the es-discuss