direct_proxies "problem"

Andrea Giammarchi andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com
Sat Jan 12 15:30:09 PST 2013


also because I believe it is straight forward ... "is this a hosted thingy"
? throw "this object cannot be proxied"

So the source of all evil disappear until Proxy is eventually able to wrap
DOM instances too.


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Brandon Benvie
<brandon at brandonbenvie.com>wrote:

> This isn't exactly a direct parallel because all the types that are
> included as part of ES6 will be proxyable in such a way that the proxy can
> be transparently interchanged with its target. The problem with DOM objects
> is that this isn't true. I think it would be a good practice for the
> providers of unproxyable platform APIs to be up front about their inability
> to be proxied successfully.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 12/01/2013 23:28, Andrea Giammarchi a écrit :
>>
>>  I don't want to detect node and proxied node
>>>
>> Why would you have to?
>> Currently, before calling .appendChild, do you write code that detects
>> that you're not trying to append a normal object or a date or an array? I
>> have personally never done such a test, because anytime I .appendChild,
>> I've created the node before or picked it up from the DOM tree. Why would
>> it be different when proxies are out?
>>
>> David
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130112/e8f34723/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list