[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls
Tom Van Cutsem
tomvc.be at gmail.com
Thu Sep 12 05:42:10 PDT 2013
2013/9/12 Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> what Tom was referring to above: "statically separate the cases into two
> separate internal methods".
> I presume, in context, he means [[Invoke]] and [[ConditionalInvoke]] but
> it could also mean [[Invoke]] and [[InvokeFunction]]
Yes (I meant [[Invoke]] + [[ConditionalInvoke]]).
Jason and Allen's arguments convince me that we're better off refactoring
all [[Get]]+[[Call]] occurrences to use some form of conditional [[Invoke]].
Out of all the circulating alternatives, I prefer [[Invoke]] +
[[ConditionalInvoke]] as it allows virtual object proxies to avoid consing
(also, [[ConditionalInvoke]], much more so than [[InvokeFunction]], neatly
captures the *intent* of what's going on in the spec)
As for the consistency costs, we already have them. This only ups the ante
for standardizing on a good library of subclassable Handler abstractions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss