A few arrow function specification issues

Brendan Eich 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
>     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?

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 mailing list