Re: Function proxies without explicit construct trap

2011-11-15 Thread Tom Van Cutsem
Earlier I wrote: All good points, and I don't recall any of them being intentional. Your points seem to suggest changing the semantics such that calling new fproxy() on a function proxy without a construct trap should perhaps just simply throw a TypeError. Looking at the problem again, the

Re: Function proxies without explicit construct trap

2011-11-13 Thread Tom Van Cutsem
Hi Andreas, All good points, and I don't recall any of them being intentional. Your points seem to suggest changing the semantics such that calling new fproxy() on a function proxy without a construct trap should perhaps just simply throw a TypeError. Now, in the direct proxies design, a missing

Re: Function proxies without explicit construct trap

2011-11-13 Thread Brendan Eich
On Nov 13, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote: Hi Andreas, All good points, and I don't recall any of them being intentional. Your points seem to suggest changing the semantics such that calling new fproxy() on a function proxy without a construct trap should perhaps just simply

Function proxies without explicit construct trap

2011-11-10 Thread Andreas Rossberg
I think the specification of [[Construct]] for function proxies may not currently be doing what it is intended to do. If the proxy does not have a construct trap, the method simply delegates to the [[Construct]] method of the call trap. AFAICS, that has two consequences: 1. The prototype is taken