Let's kill terms "native" and "host"
brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Jan 30 11:00:01 PST 2012
Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> Can we get rid of the concept of "Foreign Object" entirely, and just
>> treat all the objects we have in mind (e.g. DOM nodes) as "Built in
>> proxy objects"?
> Possibly, but my gut says that is a step too far for this iteration of
> the spec. If we could, then we could also get rid of all internal
> redefinition of the internal methods and replace all chapter 15
> objects specifications with Proxy based definitions.
Array is a hard case, but most of the clause 15 objects do not need to
be proxies, IINM. Some need private-named (formerly "internal")
properties, but that's a subclassing fix we want.
> It may be possible, but I'm worried that we don't yet understand
> reflection upon proxies well enough yet to expose the built-ins in
> that manner. It also it clear to me whether proxies are yet power
> enough to accomplish everything that is currently done with "host
We should do a stress-test on implementations and other specs that claim
to need more than what proxies now provide. I think we can ignore the
legacy stuff in WebIDL -- it can still be outlaw. What we want is a
smaller ECMA-262 that biases for the future.
More information about the es-discuss