UInt8ClampedArray Bitwise operators?

[Allen Wirfs-Brock]

On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote:

> I can see why, since nearly everyone depends on that coupling. Minifiers depend on it. Mixin utilities depend on it. Breaking the Web would be an understatement.
> 

Not so clear.  The proposed default default for an indexed access would be exactly the same as for legacy property access.  It is pretty much just providing a signal to the meta level that opens the possibility of newly defined object treating [ ] member accesses differently from .  member accesses.

Allen

> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 14:36 Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Caitlin Potter wrote:
> >> ES2015 already has element accessor overloading with proxies, right?
> >> >  It's everything else that's missing.
> >
> > Proxies enforce invariants, which is problematic for this use case because it’s A) expensive, and B) also restricts you from “lying” about the actual properties which exist on the element.
> >
> > I recall from an old presentation on Value Types that overloading `[]` was off limits because those invariants needed to keep working.
> 
> No operator proposal has included property access, not so much for
> reasons you give (which are good ones) but for separation of concerns.
> Allen did propose:
> 
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation
> 
> This was controversial in the committee when last considered. Just sayin'!
> 
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150812/d60beb59/attachment-0001.html>