On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Andrea Giammarchi < andrea.giammar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But then why such "encouragement" > https://brendaneich.com/2012/10/harmony-of-dreams-come-true/ ? ( Proxy > paragraph ) > > If __noSuchMethod__ is wrong, what's the point of suggesting a way to > simulate it through proxies? > __noSuchMethod__ isn't the same problem as my concern about invoke-only traps. In this case, (x = sink.bar).apply(sink) would still hit the __noSuchMethod__ method. > > Moreover, what's the point to mark it wrong if many developers asked for > it? > > I also remember I have written this a while ago: > http://webreflection.blogspot.com/2011/12/please-give-us-back-nosuchmethod.html > > As result I see Tom's implementation with bound callbacks per property and > a freaking slower runtime every time an API would like a fancy noSuchMethod > behavior ... just saying :-) > > br > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 2012/10/24 Yehuda Katz <wyc...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> I'm not sure I understand the benefit of making it easy to develop APIs >>> where foo.bar() is not roughly equivalent to (x = foo.bar).apply(foo). Am I >>> misunderstanding something? >>> >> >> No, that's indeed another way of phrasing it. Proxies don't support >> invoke() in part because we didn't want to encourage such APIs. >> >> Cheers, >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> > -- Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
