[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls, once more

Tom Van Cutsem tomvc.be at gmail.com
Mon Oct 21 00:59:32 PDT 2013


2013/10/18 Till Schneidereit <till at tillschneidereit.net>

> I share this concern. Last time we discussed it, Brendan said that we
> could implement it by falling back to .get if .invoke isn't
> defined[1]. I'm not sure how well that fits into the rest of the Proxy
> design, though.
>

It doesn't fit the direct proxies design (which wants to forward to the
target by default for missing traps), but it does fit the old proxy design
(where the proxy would indeed fall back to more primitive traps if more
specialized traps were missing). There is a case to be made for switching
designs for backwards-compat reasons. It would be symmetry breaking but it
would give us the necessary leeway to evolve the API. Worst-case, as Allen
mentioned, we can introduce a distinct proxy constructor.

Cheers,
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20131021/7b67dc71/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list