On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 3:02 PM, David Herman wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not sure what Array.prototype methods would or wouldn't work on
>>>> instances of SubArray.
>>>
>>> All of them. They are all generic.
>>
>> We're speaking too broadly here. It depends on what we want to work how. For
>> example, .map can't magically know how to produce a SubArray as its result
>> if that's how SubArray wants it to work.
This is the real concern, I believe. The Array methods (all generic in that
they take array-like |this| -- at least one is Array-specific in argument
handling: concat) that return a new array always make an instance of Array.
Alex Russell brought up the idea of extending these array-producing methods to
call a user-defined constructor. We discussed doing it by reflecting on
this.constructor, but that is not a compatible change: people today call
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments) intending to get an Array instance whose
elements come from the arguments object. It would be wrong to change this code
to return a new Object, but that's what reflecting on this.constructor would
do, because:
js> function f(){return arguments.constructor}
js> f()
function Object() {[native code]}
So we have two choices:
1. Duplicate the array methods with new twins mutated to reflect on
this.constructor -- this is ugly and bloaty, even if we can segregate the
methods so as to avoid mangling the twins' names.
2. Add a new protocol, perhaps enabled by setting a well-known private name
object (i.e., a unique public name), denoted it kResultConstructor, so that the
methods can detect something like this[kResultConstructor].
(2) adds a bit of runtime cost to the methods, which are not super-optimized in
many way in today's engines. Not sure that hurts it much, compared to (1). Do
modules help us make a better, less bloaty form of (1)?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
