You can always just return a callable from `handler.get`. Function closures are much more ergonomic than proxies for that in my experience, although I generally make no distinction regarding `this` (which only complicates in this area).
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 20:47 Uther Pendragon <[email protected]> wrote: > Perhaps it's a bit late... but I'd like to discuss the proxy object. > Notably: why no way to define a hook for when a property is called as a > function. > > I think I understand *why* there isn't one.. I presume because how a > property is used (I.e. as a property or called as a function) is a level > deeper than the recalling of said property. If at all possible, I think it > would be incredibly useful. This may be outside the intended purpose of > the proxy object, but a proxy for the purposes of a middleware (I hate that > word too) that is more dynamic would be perfect for adaptors etc... > Perhaps it's not feasible, because the proxy hook is best applied at the > point when the property's definition, which brings me to my next > suggestion.... > > What about the ability to alter / define the configuration of a scope > variable, like those on objects with defineProperty... but with simple > scope variables... I presume most implementations define scope variables > much like object properties internally. > > On Dec 14, 2016 2:56 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of es-discuss digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Ranges (Jeremy Martin) > 2. Re: Ranges (Alexander Jones) > 3. Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration (Jeff Walden) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> > To: Hikaru Nakashima <[email protected]> > Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:55:02 -0500 > Subject: Re: Ranges > While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does > have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an > expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I understand. > I hope to find a good form of literals. > > Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following > cases? > > ``` > for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... } > vs > for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... } > ``` > > If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests. > > 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <[email protected]>: > > I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on > any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this > to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible. > > It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an > inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same > as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers. > > When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical > to change the language this way for such a small benefit. > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Oh, I understood it. > It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually. > If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea? > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Jeremy Martin > 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853> > http://devsmash.com > @jmar777 > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alexander Jones <[email protected]> > To: Hikaru Nakashima <[email protected]>, Jeremy Martin < > [email protected]> > Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:28:37 +0000 > Subject: Re: Ranges > IMO this is quite unnecessary syntax sugar. Python has everything you > could need here without special syntax. > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 16:55, Jeremy Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > > While slightly more verbose, the previously suggested `...` syntax does > have a superficial consistency with the spread operator. Both perform an > expansion of sorts, which has a subtle elegance to it, IMO. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Hikaru Nakashima < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I understand. > I hope to find a good form of literals. > > Is there a fact that literals are easier to optimize in the following > cases? > > ``` > for (let i of [1 to 5]) { ...... } > vs > for (let i of Array.range(1, 5)) { ...... } > ``` > > If so, it seems that we can attract vendors' interests. > > 2016-12-14 17:29 GMT+09:00 Andy Earnshaw <[email protected]>: > > I think you'd be lucky to even get to that stage. Vendors aren't keen on > any kind of backwards incompatibility in new specs and trying to get this > to stage 4 with such a glaring one would be practically impossible. > > > It's not just the incompatibility either. You also introduce an > inconsistencies where things like `[1..toFixed(2)]` doesn't mean the same > as `[ 1..toFixed(2) ]`. That kind of thing is just confusing to developers. > > > When you consider these things, it becomes clear that it's not practical > to change the language this way for such a small benefit. > > > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, 03:00 Hikaru Nakashima, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Oh, I understood it. > It looks like serious problem, but it is may not actually. > If this spec change doesn't break web, we can introduce this idea? > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > Jeremy Martin > 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853> > http://devsmash.com > @jmar777 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jeff Walden <[email protected]> > To: Isiah Meadows <[email protected]>, Allen Wirfs-Brock < > [email protected]> > Cc: Nathan Wall <[email protected]>, Brendan Eich <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:55:46 -0800 > Subject: Re: Destructuring object outside of var declaration > On 11/13/2016 12:33 PM, Isiah Meadows wrote: > > Okay. Is it a spec bug then? Throwing a ReferenceError is surprising and > odd IMHO. > > I think so -- having different sorts of early errors makes it a little > less clear what sort of error should be thrown when two early errors of > different types are in the same script. Last I knew, the spec was > basically just waiting on someone to experiment with pulling the trigger to > make everything a SyntaxError. I've been meaning to do that for awhile, > but it's not a high priority. > > Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
