Brendan Eich wrote: > On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > >> Brendan Eich wrote: >>> The spec can't yet define these "native wannabe" future standardization >>> fodder objects, but clearly that's what Allen was thinking of, and it is >>> well-known to implementors. >> >> Why do such things need to have a [[Class]] other than "Object"? > > Let's make everything have [[Class]] "Object". Any "private instance > variables" whose presence is currently guarded by class checks should > become Name-identified (unforgeable/unguessable property names) > properties with whatever values are needed. Bonus: you can delegate such > internal properties to prototypes. > > Seriously, this is not the language we have.
You missed my point. Why do *new* abstractions need to have a [[Class]] other than "Object"? The fact that existing abstractions are defined that way is not a sufficiently good reason. The obvious approach to handling instance properties is that if a needed property doesn't exist or is of the wrong type, the algorithm should throw a TypeError. Note that once the Harmony class system is in place, we'll presumably be able to specify new abstractions as if they had been defined using classes, and I would think that we would certainly want to do it that way, regardless of historical precedent. [Replies to es-discuss, since this is no longer on-topic for es5-discuss.] -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
