[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls, once more
Tom Van Cutsem
tomvc.be at gmail.com
Mon Oct 21 00:56:03 PDT 2013
To confirm what Allen already mentioned: I too concluded from the
discussion that we would remove [[Invoke]] from ES6.
It is one of a few items I would like to put on the agenda of the TC39
November meeting to get a definitive consensus (the other item being the
removal of the hasOwn() trap, for which there also was consensus on the
2013/10/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Brandon Benvie wrote:
> > On 10/18/2013 11:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> >> What your question does help me be more decisive on: We should not be
> in a rush to add an Invoke, InvokeFunction, or any new traps not needed for
> membranes, and not subject to a long history of examination. Invoke at
> least, as a derived trap, can always be added later, after ES6.
> > Isn't there observably different behavior different depending on whether
> invoke exists or not? Even if you don't implement it in your handler? If
> that's the case, then it's not guaranteed that it can be added later down
> the line.
> Yes, and those differences are not easily fixable in the context of the
> current Proxy design. As currently defined, some possible uses of Proxies
> will be "broken" regardless of whether or not [[Invoke]] is there. Yet,
> the only reason to add [[Invoke]] at this time would be to try to fix
> issues with Proxies but even with [[Invoke]] we still have issues. And.
> for ES6, we're run of time for experimenting with fixes. However, as Mark
> pointed out, experts can make them work for specific use cases and they are
> essential for supporting membranes. So we can live with the exiting design
> (without [[Invoke]]) as an expert feature for building membranes and
> similar use cases.
> If we ever come up with a better design (perhaps including [[Invoke]]) we
> can always introduce a new kind of proxy that works with it.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss