Le 05/10/2011 10:17, Lasse Reichstein a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:19 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I sent a message here explaining the necessity of a syntax
construct for a reliable bind [1]. There is a need to investingate
(one reply was very close from a solution) to make sure that such
a thing is not possible in pure ES5 (without making
Function.prototype.bind non-configurable), but that would be one
such thing that no language compiling to JavaScript could emulate
(since impossible in the language itself).
I don't think "security" from malicious changes to
Function.prototype.bind is a good argument for adding new operator
syntax.
The problem doesn't stop with Function.prototype.bind. ES5 as a
compilation target is built on a quagmire since almost all fundamental
language operations are methods that can be changed. The operators are
the exception, since you can't override their meaning[1], and I can
see why you wish to introduce modification-safe operators for the
operations you want to preserve - but why is Function.prototype.bind
more important than, say, Math.pow?
The difference I saw is that you can keep a reference to Math.pow within
a scope of yours and you'll be fine. Such a thing doesn't seem possible
with call, apply and bind, mostly because you need to rely on at least
one of them in order to do call.call or call.bind, etc. and
consequently, you always depend on the value on Function.prototype.* in
a way or another.
As i said before, there is a reliable way to do a call which is f(), but
you can't choose the value of |this|. That's what originally motivated
the idea of a syntax-based bind.
I don't think that the other functions require such a thing.
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
