On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Jason Orendorff > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems rather heavyweight. You can already get about the same effect > just > > by writing that wrapper yourself. > > As I've argued and demonstrated in these threads already, no, you > can't just do it yourself. Every solution fails in at least some > details, usually trading security against convenience or the other way > around. Other axes include simplicity and performance, and there are tradeoffs with every proposed design. That’s how things are. This isn't acceptable, given that I can produce a *perfect* > "object map" with existing Proxy operations. > Having one kind of hook does not imply that some other completely different kind of hook must be added. Software design is chock full of this kind of design tradeoff. These assertions that a particular use case (your use case) must be addressed, in the particular way you've proposed, and that anything less is unacceptable—they are unconvincing, to say the least. I still think WebIDL might be the way to go. After all it is WebIDL support that makes your current spec language possible. But I have one more possibly productive suggestion, which I'll try to post today. -j
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
