[[Invoke]] and implicit method calls

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Tue Sep 24 09:47:48 PDT 2013


On Sep 24, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> Thanks to André and Tom, I think I now understand the problem. I think the only solution lies in this comment from Tom:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc.be at gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] The generic solution is membranes. Anything else needs application-specific consideration.
> 
> But right above it he says
> 
> To solve all of that, you'd need proper membranes. But using membranes to fix the this-rebinding problem seems like total overkill.
> 
> A solution that works is better than one that doesn't. We always knew that patterns of proxies short of membranes would have abstraction leakage. This is one. What is wrong with the stance: Live with it or use membranes,
> 
> In answer to Tom's later question, Caja code does use the pattern
> 
>     f.call(thing);
> 
> a lot. Or even

Mark,

In the wild, how often do you think F.p.call is used with these sorts of integrity guarantees in mind?  Does anybody other than Caja do it?   If we are really only talking about Caja, it presumably could adapt to using Reflect.apply.

Allen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130924/0cdcc1f2/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list