Hi David, 2013/5/2 David Bruant <[email protected]>
> IIRC, trying to change the design of harmony:proxies to be able to > represent these (probably started at [1], also motivated by arrays length > property) led to listing invariants (eternal/momentary) and then led to the > idea of a per-proxy storage to remember which invariants should be > enforced. But for the degenerate case of a forwarding proxy (frozen > object), this would have resulted in pretty much duplicating the needed > memory. One fold for the object itself, the other for the invariant storage. > Direct proxies emerged out of the idea of merging the target from the > forwarding proxy use case and the "invariant storage". > Yes, that's a fairly accurate history. > In any case, harmony:proxies have limitations apparently inherent to their > design, hence moving away from them. > The limitation was indeed that they couldn't represent non-extensible/non-configurable invariants without some extra hidden storage. Direct proxies make that storage explicit as the target object. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
