2013/7/30 David Bruant <bruan...@gmail.com> > 2013/7/30 Tom Van Cutsem <tomvc...@gmail.com> > >> tl;dr: >> >> I would argue that Array.isArray should return true for >> proxies-for-arrays. >> The other built-ins are less crucial and could stay the way they are. >> > What about WeakMaps? Maps? Sets? >
I meant the specific list of built-in methods on Array, apart from isArray, are less crucial. We'll have to evaluate the other types you mention on a case-by-case basis as well. > How is the line drawn between "crucial" and "less crucial"? How is going > to be decided whether new exotic object types are crucial? > I feel the line is very context-specific. > I think that's essentially Allen's point: with built-ins, you arrive at rock-bottom, at the edges of the platform. You cannot easily generalize anymore. We need to look at each of these "is an exotic X" tests on a case-by-case basis and use our judgment whether it makes sense for proxies to pass the test. > I can easily agree that arrays are more used than other exotic objects > *for now* (WeakMap/Map/Set may change that, we'll see), but a Date > enhancing library will want to work with proxies (proxies it does not have > necessarily created), and it will become crucial for proxies-on-dates to > work there. > Importance is relative to context and doing a "common denominator" > analysis to assess importance can be detrimental for specific use cases. > > > "I agree that it is not safe to generalize: a proxy for an X is not in > general substitutable for X." > => How much unsafe? What are the risks? > I don't think a general answer exists, because each of these built-ins has its own idiosyncratic set of invariants. Cheers, Tom
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
