Action proxies

[Brendan Eich]

If notification proxies require allocation per trap activation, that's a 
fatal flaw in my view.

/be

Mark S. Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:22 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com 
> <mailto:bruant.d at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     [...]
>     This does indeed get rid of invariant checks while guaranteeing
>     the invariants anyway and apparently not losing expressiveness. Wow.
>
>
> ;)
>
>     Was this discussed during the January TC39 meeting? Do
>     notification proxies have a chance to replace direct proxies or is
>     it too late?
>     In the case it would be too late, could "throw ForwardToTarget" be
>     considered?
>
>
> I mentioned at the January meeting that we'll be experimenting with 
> these new notification proxies, to see if they cover all the 
> motivating use cases adequately. I'm increasingly hopeful, but have 
> nothing to report yet. If they do, then at the March meeting I will 
> propose that we do not include direct proxies in ES6. Since it is too 
> late to introduce as radical a change as notification proxies into 
> ES6, I would propose that proxies as a whole get postponed till ES7.
>
> We'll all be sad to see proxies wait. But given how much better 
> notification proxies seem to be, if they work out, it would be a 
> terrible shame to standardize the wrong proxies in ES6 just because 
> they're ready and sorely needed. Of course, as with Object.observe, 
> implementors are free to ship things ahead of formal standardization. 
> And notification proxies are vastly simpler to implement correctly 
> than direct proxies.
>
> -- 
>     Cheers,
>     --MarkM
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss