July 25, 2012 - TC39 Meeting Notes

David Bruant bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Jul 28 05:13:25 PDT 2012


Le 28/07/2012 13:43, Herby Vojčík a écrit :
> David Bruant wrote:
>>      var a = [];
>>      a.push = function(elem){
>>          if(condition(elem)){
>>              // do something like change the elem value then do an
>> actual
>> push
>>              // or throw an error
>>              // or just ignore this value to avoid duplicates, for
>> instance
>>          }
>>          else{
>>              Array.prototype.push.call(this, elem)
>>          }
>>      };
>>
>>      // use a.push (there is an implicit contract on only using .push to
>> add elements)
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> * I could use Object.defineProperty, but the above code is definitely
>> more readable and intuitive.
>
> Well, yes. But from the philosophical PoV, imho, you should do
> Object.defineProperty here, because that is what you do (your intent
> is not "put a value to a's push property").
My intent is "I want a custom 'push' property for this particular
array", because I'm filling the array afterwards using .push calls. I
don't know what I "should" be doing from a philosophical point of view,
but the code written above describes my intention pretty well. If I saw
a call to Object.defineProperty instead, my first reaction would
certainly be "but why isn't a regular assignment used here?". A comment
could be added to explain the [[CanPut]], but that's what I would call
"boilerplate comment".

So far, to the general question "why is Object.defineProperty used
instead of a regular assignment used here?", the only answer I find
acceptable is "defining custom configurable/writable/enumerable",
because these are things local to the code that have no syntax for them.
In most cases, getter/setters can be defined in object literals.
Adding "the prototype may be frozen, thus preventing shadowing" to the
acceptable answers makes local code review harder.


> Though not very constructive, I'd say this is the case where
>
> a.{
>   push(elem) {
>     ...
>   }
> };
>
> is definitely missing.
I remembered that .{ semantics was a [[Put]] semantic, so it wouldn't
solve the problem. Did I remember something wrong?

Arguably, I could use a different name than "push". But it doesn't
change the problem:
If I add an 'x' property to my array and later in the history of ES, an
Array.prototype.x property is added, my code will break by virtue of
engines updating... hmm... That's a worse situation than I initially
thought.

David


More information about the es-discuss mailing list