brendan at mozilla.com
Mon Feb 4 09:51:48 PST 2013
If notification proxies require allocation per trap activation, that's a
fatal flaw in my view.
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
> 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.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss