Object.observe and observing "computed properties"

[Brendan Eich]

Rafael Weinstein wrote:
> [Just to be clear: I*don't*  think it makes sense to include reads in
> the set of changeRecords generated by Object.observe() at this point]

Indeed -- one might want to rename these things from "changeRecords" to 
something else, at least!

But beyond the name, reads dominate writes. That raises the overhead, 
and also makes me wonder about the ability of an observer to make sense 
of what's going on, given that all these records must be processed in a 
later turn. Sure, the records will be well-ordered, but at that late 
date, do the reads matter? The reader (getter) got whatever data it 
wanted, synchronously, get by get.

/be