Proxy

Isiah Meadows isiahmeadows at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 13:04:59 UTC 2016


You can always just return a callable from `handler.get`. Function closures
are much more ergonomic than proxies for that in my experience, although I
generally make no distinction regarding `this` (which only complicates in
this area).

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 20:47 Uther Pendragon <uther420 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161221/90afe512/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list