Proxy

Uther Pendragon uther420 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 15 01:47:38 UTC 2016


Perhaps it's a bit late... but I'd like to discuss the proxy object.
Notably:  why no way to define a hook for when a property is called as a
function.

I think I understand *why* there isn't one..  I presume because how a
property is used (I.e. as a property or called as a function) is a level
deeper than the recalling of said property.  If at all possible, I think it
would be incredibly useful.  This may be outside the intended purpose of
the proxy object, but a proxy for the purposes of a middleware (I hate that
word too) that is more dynamic  would be perfect for adaptors etc...
Perhaps it's not feasible, because the proxy hook is best applied at the
point when the property's definition, which brings me to my next
suggestion....

What about the ability to alter / define the configuration of a scope
variable, like those on objects with defineProperty... but with simple
scope variables...  I presume most implementations define scope variables
much like object properties internally.

On Dec 14, 2016 2:56 PM, <es-discuss-request at mozilla.org> wrote:

Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to
        es-discuss at mozilla.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        es-discuss-request at mozilla.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        es-discuss-owner at mozilla.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of es-discuss digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Ranges (Jeremy Martin)
   2. Re: Ranges (Alexander Jones)
   3. Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration (Jeff Walden)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeremy Martin <jmar777 at gmail.com>
To: Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:55:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Ranges
While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I understand.
> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>
> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
> cases?
>
> ```
> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
> vs
> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
> ```
>
> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>
> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearnshaw at gmail.com>:
>
>> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage.  Vendors aren't keen on
>> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
>> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically  impossible.
>>
>> It's not just the incompatibility either.  You also introduce an
>> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
>> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>>
>> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
>> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I understood it.
>>> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
>>> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Martin
661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
http://devsmash.com
@jmar777


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexander Jones <alex at weej.com>
To: Hikaru Nakashima <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>, Jeremy Martin <
jmar777 at gmail.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:28:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Ranges
IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you could
need here without special syntax.

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <jmar777 at gmail.com> wrote:

> While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does
> have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an
> expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO.
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima <
> oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I understand.
> I hope to find a good form of literals.
>
> Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following
> cases?
>
> ```
> for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... }
> vs
> for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... }
> ```
>
> If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests.
>
> 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <andyearnshaw at gmail.com>:
>
> I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage.  Vendors aren't keen on
> any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this
> to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically  impossible.
>
>
> It's not just the incompatibility either.  You also introduce an
> inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same
> as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers.
>
>
> When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical
> to change the language this way for such a small benefit.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <oao.hikaru.oao at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, I understood it.
> It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually.
> If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Martin
> 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
> http://devsmash.com
> @jmar777
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> es-discuss mailing list
>
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Walden <jwalden+es at mit.edu>
To: Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>, Allen Wirfs-Brock <
allen at wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Nathan Wall <nathan.wall at live.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>,
"es-discuss at mozilla.org" <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:55:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration
On 11/13/2016 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote:
> Okay. Is it a spec bug then? Throwing a ReferenceError is surprising and
odd IMHO.

I think so -- having different sorts of early errors makes it a little less
clear what sort of error should be thrown when two early errors of
different types are in the same script.  Last I knew, the spec was
basically just waiting on someone to experiment with pulling the trigger to
make everything a SyntaxError.  I've been meaning to do that for awhile,
but it's not a high priority.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
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/20161214/45ab6cfc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list