Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
Last week TC 39 approved a standard defining three new built-in constructors whose
instances and prototype objects all have [[Class]] "Object". Also, the
prototype objects are not constructed by their respective constructors, but initialized
by them, e.g., as Intl.Collator.call({}).
Are you suggesting they should have "Collator", "NumberFormat", and
"DateTimeFormat", respectively, and the prototypes be specified as being constructed by their
constructors?
All else equal, yes (sorry for not flagging these).
Any non-equal elses in sight?
/be
Thanks,
Norbert
On Sep 29, 2012, at 22:24 , Brendan Eich wrote:
Mark S. Miller wrote:
Security aside, given maximin
class Foo
what do you suggest Foo.prototype be?
If classes are sugar for constructor functions, an Object instance, just as
you'd get for
function Foo(){}
Foo.prototype
There has always been an unsightly difference between built-in constructors and
user-defined ones. Whether or how we reduce that gulf is separable from what
the [[NativeBrand]] or [[Class]] of a built-in's prototype should be.
When self-hosting built-ins, this matters. Suppose [[NativeBrand]] could be a
symbol private to the built-ins. That would allow the engine to set up
bespoke-looking prototypes as it needs to for ES1-5 compatibility. But should
user-defined classes have access to this symbol?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
