Ah - right.
BTW, I'm just pleased as punch that this is being discussed for
Harmony - thanks guys!
Cheers,
- Bill (from iPhone)
On May 6, 2009, at 10:07, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]
> wrote:
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
