(Weak){Set|Map} subclassing

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Nov 27 10:40:13 PST 2012


On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:07 AM, David Bruant wrote:

> Le 27/11/2012 14:02, David Bruant a écrit :
>> Hi,
>> 
>>    var o = {};
>>    WeakMap.call(o);
>>    WeakSet.call(o);
>>    Map.call(o);
>>    Set.call(o);
>> 
>> Currently, this works and makes o a weakmap, a weakset, a map and a set...

Sort of.  They won't inherit from any of the corresponding prototype types so none of the relevant methods will be available on those objects.  However they could be explicitly invoked on the object.  If you want to make them all available then the individual methods would have to be installed with non-conflicting names. 

But overall, why should the above be a problem?  It is how ES "construction" works and the way things work for any user defined objects.  Why should built-ins be any different?


>> I understand collections were spec'ed to enable subclassing, but I don't see the value of being able to subclass this way (I think Jason Orendorff already made the comment somewhere but I can't find it).
>> Would it rather make sense that instead of internal [[WeakMapData]], [[MapData]], etc. each would work with a single [[CollectionData]] slot which value can change depending on how it's been defined?
> Sorry, very bad working. I meant "can differ" instead of "can change". The idea is that [[CollectionData]] is of a certain type decide at initialization, but it couldn't change over time for a given object.

The [[MapData]], etc. properties are used as the "brand" that ties methods that are dependent upon a particular internal data structure to an objet that internally provides that data structure.  If you simply replaced [[MapData]], [[SetData]], etc with [[CollectionData]] then then you would also have to provide another branding property for each kind of collection so the methods don't try to operate upon the wrong kind of [[CollectionData]]

> 
>> It would still be possible to subclass each (which is the minimum class syntax needs since it's not possible to inherit from several things), but remove the possibility to subclass several of them.

But I don't see the point, since there are no similar restrictions on user defined "classes".

Allen




More information about the es-discuss mailing list