On May 8, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> On 8 May 2013 17:41, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 8, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>>
>>> What about your triangle argument?
>>
>> There is another way:
>>
>> let obj = Object.setPrototypeOf({x:0, y:0}, pointProto};
>>
>> Let's keep {__proto__: foo} in the slightly disrespectable Annex B box.
>> That keeps it together with O.p.__proto and leaves room for future, more
>> elegant object literal syntax extensions if we decided we really need them
>> (and we probably won't).
>
> Isn't Object.create the proper alternative to both {__proto__: } and
> triangle for objects? What has setPrototypeOf got to do with it? (And
> why is that on the table all of a sudden?)
I think that Brandon Benvie adequated addressed Object.create.
Regarding setPrototypeOf, once Mark agreed that the [[protoSetter]] function
did not need to be Realm restricted it essentially became a publicly available
API for modify the [[Prototype]] of arbitrary objects.
Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(Object.prototype,
"__proto__").set.call(obj, proto)
There is a vocal part of the JS community who would prefer that the core
language also offer Object.setPrototypeOf as the preferred alternative to the
above:
Object.setPrototypeOf(obj,proto)
This is only a cosmetic difference. But I agree that it is good cosmetics.
Dynamic prototype modification seems to have won as a required feature of the
language. Since that is the case, consistancy suggests that we should treat
it cosmetically just like all the dynamic reflection operations defined on
Object.
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
