I don't think there is any disagreement that obj.prop() is the baseline use case for catchalls that must be supported. The original context of Brendan's comment was more about whether a handler was needed for obj() in addition to obj.prop().
Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: William Edney [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 4:16 AM >To: Brendan Eich >Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock; es-discuss Steen >Subject: Re: Improving ECMAScript as a compilation target > >All - > >On May 6, 2009, at 1:15 AM, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> But obj.prop() is worth a catchall, this is the popular >> __noSuchMethod__ case, so that one does not have to create a method >> for each value of 'prop' and retain it in obj under that name. The >> call can be forwarded without any proxy or cloned method. > >Indeed. As the original you-know-what disturber that got the whole >__noSuchMethod__ ball rolling, I would argue that having to do so >would dilute almost all of the value. It is precisely because >__noSuchMethod__ is a catch *all*, for known and unknown properties >(especially important in a language where new properties can be >introduced on-the-fly), that makes it so valuable. > >Cheers, > >- Bill _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
