On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Igor Bukanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] So a generic mechanism, like the catchAll proposal, > to proxy arbitrary property access would be more appropriate.
I agree with need for some kind of generic catchAll, and with the objections to __noSuchMethod__. I also agree that it's too late for any such thing to make it into ES3.1. As we discussed in Oslo, I expect there will need to be a significant version between ES3.1 and ES-Harmony. For purposes of discussion here, I will call it ES3.2. The most important difference between ES3.1 and ES3.2 is in the form of the spec, rather than its content. As Brendan says in his Harmony note, we wish to transition the spec formalism to SML+self hosting (along with corresponding changes to the RI). For additions like catchAlls, whose semantics are likely to be tricky, a major benefit of postponing them to ES3.2 is that the more principled spec formalism is also more likely to reveal subtle semantic difficulties. That said, we should continue to speculate informally of course on what catchAlls should look like. The java.lang.reflect.Proxy mechanism, the E proxy <http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Proxy>, and the AmbientTalk/2 Mirage <http://prog.vub.ac.be/Publications/2007/vub-prog-tr-07-16.pdf> are all similar, and have all been used to build semi-transparent distributed object systems within the language. I think these ideas can be adapted well to EcmaScript, and would also enable transparent intermediation (such as membranes) between untrusted code and host objects. I hope to post some ideas along these lines soon. -- Cheers, --MarkM _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
