Last week TC 39 approved a standard defining three new built-in constructors
whose instances and prototype objects all have [[Class]] "Object". Also, the
prototype objects are not constructed by their respective constructors, but
initialized by them, e.g., as Intl.Collator.call({}).
Are you suggesting they should have "Collator", "NumberFormat", and
"DateTimeFormat", respectively, and the prototypes be specified as being
constructed by their constructors?
Thanks,
Norbert
On Sep 29, 2012, at 22:24 , Brendan Eich wrote:
> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> Security aside, given maximin
>>
>> class Foo
>>
>> what do you suggest Foo.prototype be?
>
> If classes are sugar for constructor functions, an Object instance, just as
> you'd get for
>
> function Foo(){}
> Foo.prototype
>
> There has always been an unsightly difference between built-in constructors
> and user-defined ones. Whether or how we reduce that gulf is separable from
> what the [[NativeBrand]] or [[Class]] of a built-in's prototype should be.
>
> When self-hosting built-ins, this matters. Suppose [[NativeBrand]] could be a
> symbol private to the built-ins. That would allow the engine to set up
> bespoke-looking prototypes as it needs to for ES1-5 compatibility. But should
> user-defined classes have access to this symbol?
>
> /be
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
