Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
Can we get rid of the concept of "Foreign Object" entirely, and just
treat all the objects we have in mind (e.g. DOM nodes) as "Built in
proxy objects"?
Possibly, but my gut says that is a step too far for this iteration of
the spec. If we could, then we could also get rid of all internal
redefinition of the internal methods and replace all chapter 15
objects specifications with Proxy based definitions.
Array is a hard case, but most of the clause 15 objects do not need to
be proxies, IINM. Some need private-named (formerly "internal")
properties, but that's a subclassing fix we want.
It may be possible, but I'm worried that we don't yet understand
reflection upon proxies well enough yet to expose the built-ins in
that manner. It also it clear to me whether proxies are yet power
enough to accomplish everything that is currently done with "host
objects".
We should do a stress-test on implementations and other specs that claim
to need more than what proxies now provide. I think we can ignore the
legacy stuff in WebIDL -- it can still be outlaw. What we want is a
smaller ECMA-262 that biases for the future.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
