Sorry, I meant obj's handler "Mark S. Miller" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What does "f's handler" refer to? If obj is a proxy and f is not, then obj has >a proxy and f does not. > > > >On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> >wrote: > > >On Sep 23, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> Hi Allen, >> >> Your line of thinking has convinced me that `invoke` as it currently stands >> doesn't really fly. However, I have an issue with your proposal. Take this >> fragment: >> >> (1) function f() { doSomethingWith(this); } >> (2) f.call(obj); >> >> Presently, the expression at (2) grants the function `f` access to `obj`. >> If I understand correctly, under your proposal the expression at (2), in the >> case where `obj` is a proxy, additionally grants `obj` access to `f`. Is >> that right? > >In the case where obj is a Proxy f.call(obj) would give f's handler access to >f. > > >Allen > > >_______________________________________________ >es-discuss mailing list >[email protected] >https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > >-- > Cheers, > --MarkM >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
