Oh. Pardon my ignorance. Misunderstood the idea. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015, 23:19 Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
