[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls
allen at wirfs-brock.com
Fri Sep 20 17:56:35 PDT 2013
On Sep 20, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> The main reason I'm still supportive of [[Invoke]] (possibly with the option of passing a function instead of a property key) is because it allows (and that I think you pointed out) a proxy to implements some or all of its methods directly in its 'invoke" trap rather than as discrete functions.
> Only if the client code doesn't extract a method as a funarg. There's no way around get and invoke having to be consistent.
> JS has first class functions, methods are not second class, so invoke cannot relieve a proxy from reifying methods from get.
> Given this, having the legacy internal calls continue to use get+call seems fine to me. A proxy implementing toString, e.g., can make it work using these traps just as well as via get+invoke, and without double lookup or boolean-trap-smelling (id | func) parameterization of invoke.
In that case, why not just use [[Get]]+[[InvokeFunction]] in all cases (including obj.m(()) and not have the current [[Invoke]] at all. It allows the proxy handler to correctly intercede on all method invocations including conditional cones.
Slogan: [[InvokeFunctiction]] is the new [[Call]].
(except that [[Call]] still needs to exist as an implementation mechanism and if we eliminate the current [[Invoke]] I would repurpose that name for what I'm currently calling [[InvokeFunction]])
More information about the es-discuss