On Aug 12, 2015, at 7:30 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote: > I can see why, since nearly everyone depends on that coupling. Minifiers > depend on it. Mixin utilities depend on it. Breaking the Web would be an > understatement. >
Not so clear. The proposed default default for an indexed access would be exactly the same as for legacy property access. It is pretty much just providing a signal to the meta level that opens the possibility of newly defined object treating [ ] member accesses differently from . member accesses. Allen > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 14:36 Brendan Eich <bren...@mozilla.org> wrote: > Caitlin Potter wrote: > >> ES2015 already has element accessor overloading with proxies, right? > >> > It's everything else that's missing. > > > > Proxies enforce invariants, which is problematic for this use case because > > it’s A) expensive, and B) also restricts you from “lying” about the actual > > properties which exist on the element. > > > > I recall from an old presentation on Value Types that overloading `[]` was > > off limits because those invariants needed to keep working. > > No operator proposal has included property access, not so much for > reasons you give (which are good ones) but for separation of concerns. > Allen did propose: > > http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:object_model_reformation > > This was controversial in the committee when last considered. Just sayin'! > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
