Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 118, Issue 14

[Uther Pendragon]

Sorry for quoting all that in my previous reply
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Proxy

[Uther Pendragon]

Agreed, but it lacks intent...  I.e., the get handler doesn't know whether
the return value is being called.

Imagine a layer that is so robust and flexible that, to use it, you don't
have to know or care how the things are used...   You just do what makes
sense and it works...  this concept kinda depends on knowing whether
something is being called from, read or assigned when the handler is called.

On Dec 21, 2016 7:05 AM, "Isiah Meadows"  wrote:

> 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  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,  wrote:
>>
>> Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>>
>> 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
>> es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> es-discuss-ow...@mozilla.org
>>
>> 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 
>> To: Hikaru Nakashima 
>> Cc: es-discuss 
>> 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 <
>> oao.hikaru@gmail.com> 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 :
>>
>> 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, 
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Martin
>> 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
>> http://devsmash.com
>> @jmar777
>>
>>
>> -- Forwarded message --
>> From: Alexander Jones 
>> To: Hikaru Nakashima , Jeremy Martin <
>> 

Re: Proxy

[Isiah Meadows]

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  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,  wrote:
>
> Send es-discuss mailing list submissions to
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>
> 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
> es-discuss-requ...@mozilla.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> es-discuss-ow...@mozilla.org
>
> 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 
> To: Hikaru Nakashima 
> Cc: es-discuss 
> 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 <
> oao.hikaru@gmail.com> 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 :
>
> 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, 
> 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
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Martin
> 661.312.3853 <(661)%20312-3853>
> http://devsmash.com
> @jmar777
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Alexander Jones 
> To: Hikaru Nakashima , Jeremy Martin <
> jmar...@gmail.com>
> Cc: es-discuss 
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:28:37 +
> 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  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 <
> oao.hikaru@gmail.com>