2013/9/25 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:01 AM, David Bruant wrote: > > Builtins are easy, because it's very clear which method is expected to > work with which object; there is a clear definition of what an "instance" > is and that can be tracked internally. Also, the auto-unwrapping can be > done safely, because it's done internally. None of these two are true for > userland private state. > > > How is this clear at the level of specify the behavior of MOP operations > for Proxy instances? What is it that distinguishes a function that has > such dependencies from one that doesn't. > > Also, one of the early goals of Proxy was to support self hosting of > built-ins. Saying that the Proxy MOP implementation has special knowledge > of all built-in methods would not be supportive of that goal. >
My proposal would not require the Proxy MOP to know about all the built-ins. Rather it's the other way around: all the built-ins for which passing in a proxy should work, should know about proxies and un-wrap them. But your and David's point is well-taken: this would be an ad hoc mechanism that might work for just the ES6 built-ins, but it does not scale easily beyond those. I withdraw my proposal.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
