As far as I can tell, this is a bug in Firefox / SpiderMonkey. The [[CALL]] internal method of Proxy objects does not impose any restriction on the type of the Proxy target.
The following code behaves correctly in Chromium:
```js
var proxy = new Proxy({}, { apply(target, thisArgument, arguments) { return
Reflect.apply(Array, thisArgument, arguments); } });
proxy(1, 2, 3); // [1, 2, 3]
```
But as you say, this throws in Firefox, and based on the specification, this
appears to be a bug. Implementations, amirite? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Claude Pache <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 2 mars 2016 à 13:21, Олег Галабурда <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm currently working on project that allows to manipulate objects passed
>> from Worker.
>> https://github.com/burdiuz/js-worker-interface
>> <https://github.com/burdiuz/js-worker-interface>
>>
>> It creates wrapper objects that record actions applied to this object and
>> send commands to Worker. The problem is, when request is made I cannot know
>> what kind of object is this, so in case of function I should give ability to
>> make calls on the wrapper object.
>> As example, this code:
>>
>> var api = new WorkerInterface('../webworker.js');
>> api.requestTime();
>>
>> When "requestTime" was requested, it calls "get" and immediately returns new
>> Proxy to serve function call. But at time when Proxy is created I do not
>> know if that is function or not. Now I passed "apply" limitation by adding
>> wrapper function and make Proxy think it works with function.
>> https://github.com/burdiuz/js-worker-interface/blob/master/source/interface/proxy.js
>>
>> <https://github.com/burdiuz/js-worker-interface/blob/master/source/interface/proxy.js>
>
> If I guess correctly your issue, you would like to have something similar to:
>
> foo.bar // not-a-function
>
> and:
>
> foo.bar() // a method call
>
> ? Indeed, that is not possible in JavaScript (and that limitation is not
> restricted to proxies).
>
>
>> I found in discussions why "call" trap was rejected, but didn't find
>> anything about restricting "apply" trap to functions only.
>>
>
> Probably because "X is a function" is, by design, strictly equivalent to "X
> is callable"?
>
> —Claude
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
