Re: David’s ProxyMap
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 12:57:56 PDT 2012
(x = sink.bar).apply(sink)
to me is like using apply to undefined ... that is not the equivalent of an
"invoke" where the context should be explicit ( e.g. obj.method() ) so is
not, in my opinion, a good __noSuchMethod__ case.
sink.bar is a getter , if not there, is undefined (unless chained down the
__proto__) as it is for any property
sink.bar(); is an invoke
AFAIK __noSuchMethod__ as never been used as mixin ... I cannot even think
about it, but it's possible to recycle the callback for many objects so no
need to be able to extract/assign it, imho
Not having it and forcing it through a different pattern is **not the same
as having it maybe not 100% perfect** ... and I believe latter is also what
made JS great in the past.
Anyway, I understand nobody wants it so I won't insist any further.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> But then why such "encouragement"
>> https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ ? ( Proxy
>> paragraph )
>> If __noSuchMethod__ is wrong, what's the point of suggesting a way to
>> simulate it through proxies?
> __noSuchMethod__ isn't the same problem as my concern about invoke-only
> traps. In this case, (x = sink.bar).apply(sink) would still hit the
> __noSuchMethod__ method.
> Yehuda Katz
> (ph) 718.877.1325
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss