Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Nov 20, 2008, at 12:24 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> On Nov 19, 2008, at 11:37 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>>> On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I also don't see a problem with David-Sarah's suggestion of >>>>>> forbidding >>>>>> host objects from having [[Class]] "Function". Most places in the >>>>>> spec >>>>>> care only about whether something is callable (has a [[Call]] >>>>>> property), not whether it has [[Class]] "Function". >>>>> >>>>> It seems arbitrary to me that functions implemented in native code >>>>> ("internal functions" in ECMA-262 terms) >> >> There's no such thing as an "internal function", in ECMA-262 terms. >> You presumably meant "callable host objects" here. > > No. See "10.1.1 Function Objects" in ECMA-262 3rd edition.
Yes, I corrected this in a follow-up. But internal functions by that definition are native Function objects, so they are not relevant to the argument about host objects. They only differ from non-internal Function objects by having a [[Call]] method that executes non-ECMAScript code, and by being excluded from the discussion of Execution Contexts in chapter 10. -- David-Sarah Hopwood _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list Es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss