Re: Mutable `length` for functions?

Object.defineProperty. —Claude Le 25 févr. 2013 à 07:27, Nathan Wall nathan.w...@live.com a écrit : Would it be possible to make / what are the thoughts on making `length` mutable on functions? Writing to `length` could be a useful functionality for library code. For instance, implementing something

Re: Mutable `length` for functions?

: Would it be possible to make / what are the thoughts on making `length` mutable on functions? Writing to `length` could be a useful functionality for library code. For instance, implementing something like `bind` correctly requires the arity of the bound function to be the same

Re: Mutable `length` for functions?

: Would it be possible to make / what are the thoughts on making `length` mutable on functions? Writing to `length` could be a useful functionality for library code. For instance, implementing something like `bind` correctly requires the arity of the bound function to be the same

Re: Mutable `length` for functions?

to mind. Allen Mark, does this cause SES problems? /be —Claude Le 25 févr. 2013 à 07:27, Nathan Wallnathan.w...@live.com a écrit : Would it be possible to make / what are the thoughts on making `length` mutable on functions? Writing to `length` could be a useful

Re: Mutable `length` for functions?

Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: Like I've said before, I play the long game. Eventually you usually come around:-) Except when you're off target :-P. But good long-game on this one -- well played! /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org

Mutable `length` for functions?

Would it be possible to make / what are the thoughts on making `length` mutable on functions? Writing to `length` could be a useful functionality for library code. For instance, implementing something like `bind` correctly requires the arity of the bound function to be the same as the original