On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:15:53 +0100, David-Sarah Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think the problem is that wrapper objects exist at all, not any specific
> aspect of their semantics. There is no reason to have such wrappers in a
> language in which is is possible for a given variable to hold either a
> primitive value or an object reference. Programmers should simply avoid
> using them (except where they are created and immediately discarded as a
> result of calling a method on a primitive value)
It's a hassle on implementers that you have to create these implicit objects
at all, when they aren't needed most (99%) of the time. You still need to create
them for the last 1% of the cases, since user written methods can escape the
object,
e.g.,
Number.prototype.box = function() {
return this;
};
var n = (42).box();
I would prefer to have "this" refer to a basic value instead when calling
"methods on primitive values".
I.e.:
(42).toString()
should not be equivalent to "new Number(42).toString()", but to something
simliar to "Number.prototype.toString.call(42)" that actually uses "42"
as the value of "this".
Alas, that's probably too big a change for 3.1 :(
/L
--
Lasse R.H. Nielsen
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine'
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
