A case for removing the seal/freeze/isSealed/isFrozen traps
bruant.d at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 11:53:27 PST 2013
Le 13/02/2013 20:36, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
> Hi David,
> I went a bit too far suggesting frozen objects could de-facto
> disappear with proxies.
> I'm still unclear on the need for specific
> seal/freeze/isSealed/isFrozen traps
> I think Allen and I reached consensus that we might do without those
> In addition, Allen was considering an alternative design where the
> "state" of an object (i.e. "extensible", "non-extensible", "sealed" or
> "frozen") is represented explicitly as an internal property, so that
> Object.isFrozen and Object.isSealed must not "derive" the state of an
> object from its properties.
So what would happen when calling Object.isFrozen on a proxy? Would
Object.isFrozen/isSealed/isExtensible reach out directly to the target?
or a unique "state" trap returning a string for all of them? ("state" is
too generic of a name, but you get the idea)
Regardless on the final decision on (full) notification proxies, maybe
these operations (isSealed/isFrozen) could have notification trap. The
invariant is that the answer has to be the target one (all the time), so
the trap return value is irrelevant. Like the getPrototypeOf trap.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss