WeakMap better than Private Symbols? (was: direct_proxies "problem")
waldron.rick at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 12:17:20 PST 2013
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> Right, that's not how the spec. is written.
> You certainly could do that on a per instance basis by copying down the
> methods. Perhaps even define yourself a subclass to do so. But it would
> be silly to force this on every instance.
Right, see my last response. I should've reviewed the harmony proposal and
latest draft before responding. Again, apologies for the confusion and
... It's one of those days ;)
> On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> Really?? http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-15.15.5
> *From:* es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org [es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org]
> on behalf of Rick Waldron [waldron.rick at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 14:57
> *To:* Nathan Wall
> *Cc:* es-discuss at mozilla.org
> *Subject:* Re: WeakMap better than Private Symbols? (was: direct_proxies
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nathan Wall <nathan.wall at live.com>
>> // ES6 WeakMap
>> let timeMap = new WeakMap(),
>> // Store WeakMap methods to maintain integrity of the internal
>> WeakMapGet = Function.prototype.call.bind(WeakMap.prototype.get),
>> WeakMapSet = Function.prototype.call.bind(WeakMap.prototype.set);
> Just a heads up, this is unnecessary and actually won't work at all.
> WeakMap has nothing defined on its prototype property—all methods are
> late-bound to the instance for the same reason you mention in the comment.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss