[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Mon Sep 23 19:14:51 PDT 2013


Sorry, I meant obj's handler

"Mark S. Miller" <erights at google.com> wrote:

>What does "f's handler" refer to? If obj is a proxy and f is not, then obj has a proxy and f does not.
>
>
>
>On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Sep 23, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> Hi Allen,
>>
>> Your line of thinking has convinced me that `invoke` as it currently stands doesn't really fly.  However, I have an issue with your proposal.  Take this fragment:
>>
>>     (1) function f() { doSomethingWith(this); }
>>     (2) f.call(obj);
>>
>> Presently, the expression at (2) grants the function `f` access to `obj`.  If I understand correctly, under your proposal the expression at (2), in the case where `obj` is a proxy, additionally grants `obj` access to `f`.  Is that right?
>
>In the case where obj is a Proxy f.call(obj) would give f's handler access to f.
>
>
>Allen
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>es-discuss mailing list
>es-discuss at mozilla.org
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>    Cheers,
>    --MarkM 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130923/2c0c9e4e/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list