Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > My comfort level in this starts to fall significantly as we get into the > hit or miss space. That is the point it suddenly feels like it is trying > to be (or should be trying to be) a complete meta-object protocol rather > than just a reification of failed property accesses. The former is > interesting but I think it is much harder to justify, design, and efficiently > implement than the latter.
I disagree strongly. Splitting the handlers into "always" and "missing" versions is only a little more complex to specify, implement, and understand. The semantics that would be obtained by doing this are perfectly clear AFAICS. Without this functionality, the proposal is *much* less useful for the secure JS subsets. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
