On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]>wrote:
> Right, that's not how the spec. is written. > > You certainly could do that on a per instance basis by copying down the > methods. Perhaps even define yourself a subclass to do so. But it would > be silly to force this on every instance. > Right, see my last response. I should've reviewed the harmony proposal and latest draft before responding. Again, apologies for the confusion and incorrect information. ... It's one of those days ;) Rick > > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote: > > Really?? http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-15.15.5 > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [[email protected]] > on behalf of Rick Waldron [[email protected]] > *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2013 14:57 > *To:* Nathan Wall > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: WeakMap better than Private Symbols? (was: direct_proxies > "problem") > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Nathan Wall <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> // ES6 WeakMap >> >> let timeMap = new WeakMap(), >> // Store WeakMap methods to maintain integrity of the internal >> state. >> WeakMapGet = Function.prototype.call.bind(WeakMap.prototype.get), >> WeakMapSet = Function.prototype.call.bind(WeakMap.prototype.set); >> > > > Just a heads up, this is unnecessary and actually won't work at all. > WeakMap has nothing defined on its prototype property—all methods are > late-bound to the instance for the same reason you mention in the comment. > https://gist.github.com/4505255 > > Rick > > _______________________________________________ > 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
