Hi Claus, I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but could you not achieve it by simply doing:
var target = ...; // might be frozen var p = Proxy( Object.create(target), handler); ? Cheers, Tom 2013/1/17 Claus Reinke <claus.rei...@talk21.com> > The proxy target is important because it specifies some invariants about >> the proxy (typeof, builtin brand, behavior of forwarding for unspecified >> traps, values of internal properties like [[DateValue]], [[NumberValue]], >> etc.). >> > > That is probably the most important difference between direct > proxies and old-style proxies. Yet I find it slightly limiting and > accident-prone: it uses invariants and target to make proxies > not just behave like an object, but to behave like the target. > > Presentations on direct proxies tend to present too usage patterns: > wrapped objects and virtual objects. > > My problem is: if I am using proxies as wrappers, I want to use > the target object as a -wait for it- prototype, to be *modified* by > the proxy. But if the target object happens to be frozen, modified returns > are no longer allowed by the invariants. To cover this > eventuality, I should use the virtual object pattern even if I > just want to wrap an object! > > Would it be possible/helpful to use the target merely as a __proto__ > instead of a harness, inheriting the target's internal properties without > over-constraining the proxy's ability to > modify the wrapped target's behavior? Invariants could still use an > implied object for freezing the *proxy*, so the proxy would behave as an > object, not necessarily the same as the target object. > > Claus > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
