On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Thanks, you caught a blatant inconsistency in our reasoning. We used Sean's
> message (linked above) as a reason to remove receiver, that
("but" at the end of the above line instead of "that", of course.)
> Sean wrote that message assuming both proxy and receiver would be parameters
> to get and set traps. Sean demonstrated that the two parameters would always
> have the same value, ergo only one was needed, and since at that time, proxy
> was considered important to keep (and add to all traps), receiver fell under
> the ax.
>
> But as noted higher above, at this week's meeting, we rejected adding proxy
> to all traps, including get and set. Therefore we must keep the receiver
> parameter of those two traps, for the reasons you give. Thanks again!
The good news: the proxy traps as proposed are unchanged. Hats off to Tom and
Mark for nailing that API and minimizing its parameterization!
Proxies have two prototype implementations now: Firefox since 4, and now V8
(http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=8733) -- not sure when that shows
up under a flag in Chrome canaries, someone from Google will know.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
