Le 25/10/2012 12:42, Axel Rauschmayer a écrit : >> 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? > > Right. Keeping that invariant is important. > > I’d like to avoid (the cognitive and performance cost of) having to > curry whenever you implement methods via a proxy (which seems the most > important use case for proxies). > > Being able to distinguish between a property read access and a method > invocation (which, spec-internally, you can do via a reference) is > indeed rarely interesting. It could be used for ProxyMap, but that > seems iffy, design-wise: > > let pm = new ProxyMap(); > pm.size = 123; // create a map entry > pm.size(); // invoke the size() method I've thought about .size and .keys, .values, etc. The sugar I added doesn't support these (well, .keys can be sugared with the keys/enumerate traps :-p). Everything may be doable with ProxyMap static methods. I have not given myself the goal to emulate all Map/WeakMap capabilities. But when one just wants a key->value store with object syntax (get, set, delete, 'in'), ProxyMap does the job.
David
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
