On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:02 AM, David Bruant wrote: >> On the question of proxy parameters for all traps (well, receiver for get >> and set): fewer args are better, and closure capture of proxy by handler >> avoids leaking the proxy to handler friends, if that matters. Likewise you >> can't get the handler from the proxy. > If you handlers are frozen, there should be no leaking, shouldn't there? (I > actually think that freezing the handler should be done in the no-op > forwarding proxy example or any handler factory, but that's another issue).
No default freezing is going to be imposed. :-| > About the closure capturing, it works only if one proxy is using the handler. > It doesn't if several proxies share it. Good point. >> These aren't absolute arguments, but I remember working through the >> alternative of a leading proxy parameter, both as JS hacker using proxies >> and in terms of SpiderMonkey's C++ implementation, and it was just bigger >> and less tidy, for both "sides" (JS and C++), without enough payoff. > ... what about a trailing proxy parameter? It won't change anything on the > C++ side (by comparison to a leading parameter), but will on the JS side, > because you can omit the parameter if you don't need it. Not a bad idea, and the C++ gurus can take it. Tom, Mark? /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
