bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Jan 12 15:30:23 PST 2013
Le 13/01/2013 00:18, Brandon Benvie a écrit :
> 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.
Andrea and I disagree on what "unproxyable" and "be up front about their
inability to be proxied successfully" mean. I'll try to summarize my and
Andrea's position the best I can (please Andrea, correct me if I'm
mistaken about your position):
Me: proxyability is about the Reflect API, so every object is proxyable
(but other types like numbers, booleans, etc. aren't)
Andrea: if a proxy to a DOM node cannot be substituted to a genuine DOM
node, then DOM nodes are unproxyable (can be applied to any sor of
"be up front about their inability to be proxied successfully"
Me: it's enough if the specs are upfront (corollary: web specs need to
start talking about how they deal with proxies)
Andrea: the runtime needs to be upfront
Anyone wants to provide different definitions?
More information about the es-discuss