Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
2013/10/18 Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.com @Tom - since you know the status of the more recent Proxy wiki pages better than I do, would you mind adding the same h1 text to those that fit the description of obsolete? Thanks! Done! ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
2013/10/18 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com This is what I currently have in my working draft of the ES6 spec: [...] In other words: you can say: Proxy(traget,handler) but not new Proxy(target, handler) It would be easy enough to allow new Proxy(target,handler) but I'm not sure it is the best way to expose the Proxy abstraction . Proxy really isn't a class. There is no Proxy.prototype object and obj instanceof Proxy isn't useful. Also the @@create protocol really isn't right for instantiating Proxies. Subclassing a Proxy isn't going to give you anything that is useful. I agree with your line of reasoning and I would be happy if proxies can be created without `new`. However, I don't see how the above spec disallows the use of `new`. With the above definition, won't `new Proxy(target, handler)` just work? (since the Proxy function just ignores its `this`-binding?) Regards, Tom ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
On Oct 21, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote: I agree with your line of reasoning and I would be happy if proxies can be created without `new`. However, I don't see how the above spec disallows the use of `new`. With the above definition, won't `new Proxy(target, handler)` just work? (since the Proxy function just ignores its `this`-binding?) see http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-standard-built-in-ecmascript-objects Paragraph 9: Built-in functions that are not identified as constructors do not implement the [[Construct]] internal method unless otherwise specified in the description of a particular function. Allen ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
2013/10/21 Allen Wirfs-Brock al...@wirfs-brock.com see http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-standard-built-in-ecmascript-objects Paragraph 9: Built-in functions that are not identified as constructors do not implement the [[Construct]] internal method unless otherwise specified in the description of a particular function. Got it, thanks. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are deprecated.
The correct syntax is `new Proxy(target, handler)`
In my original direct proxies proposal, the `new` was optional, so that
`var p = Proxy(target, handler)` works equally well (cf.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:direct_proxies)
Since then, it seems people want to move away from implicit construction
(since it doesn't interact well with class inheritance), so I don't know if
there is still consensus on this.
In the prototype Firefox implementation, `new` is currently mandatory.
Regards,
Tom
2013/10/18 Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node --harmony-proxies' support
the Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
Gecko also supports what MDN indicates implies is the current Proxy
syntax (i.e. new Proxy)
e.g.
var p = new Proxy(
{},
{get: function(p,x) {
return 'Hello ' + x
}}
);
p.World; //'Hello World'
Which is right?
thanks
@angustweets
___
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
RE: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Angus Croll I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6 standard It's not quite fleshed out yet, but the constructor function is at least there: http://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-proxy-objects ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
Le 18/10/2013 07:19, Angus Croll a écrit :
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
The latest official news is in the May 2013 TC39 notes:
https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-05/may-21.md#44-proxies
The final design of proxies is the direct proxies design. As Tom said,
a proxy is now created doing:
var p = Proxy(target, handler)
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are aimed at disappearing.
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node
--harmony-proxies' support the Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
On the SpiderMonkey (Gecko implements the DOM and other platform APIs
and SpiderMonkey is the part that implement ECMAScript) side, I filed a
bug to get rid of these as it's indeed confusing to have both APIs
exposed in web pages:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=892903
IIRC, the V8 team had started implementing something (behind a flag),
and then wars on Proxy design happened, so they chose to wait for the
design to stabilize. Now may be a good time to restart
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
I'm glad I succeeded in, at least, making people wonder what that was
all about :-)
Since I've been following closely the design of proxies, I documented
them on MDN. Especially after the implementation of direct proxies in
Firefox (where I moved the documentation of the previous API to its own
page and try to explain the best I could that people should not use it).
I'm happy to improve the doc if something isn't clear (on the feature
itself or clarify the current technico-social mess of different APIs in
the wild).
As a side note, to my knowledge, the only native implementation of
direct proxies is in Firefox, but it's incomplete and has known bugs.
You can see the known limitations and bugs here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=703537hide_resolved=1
(depends on section. Bug 787710 is particularly funny :-)).
If you want to play with proxies, I think that the most
faithful-to-the-spec implementation is Tom's polyfill:
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/reflect.js where
he's using the old API where available to implement the new one.
David
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
Great info thanks (and Tom and Domenic)
A note on MDN confirming that direct proxy adhered to the new spec (and a
similar one on old proxy saying it didn't) would probably be immensely helpful
to other people who had the same question I had.
Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that no
longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours
thanks!
On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:17, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 18/10/2013 07:19, Angus Croll a écrit :
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6 standard
The latest official news is in the May 2013 TC39 notes:
https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-05/may-21.md#44-proxies
The final design of proxies is the direct proxies design. As Tom said, a
proxy is now created doing:
var p = Proxy(target, handler)
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are aimed at disappearing.
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node --harmony-proxies' support the
Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
On the SpiderMonkey (Gecko implements the DOM and other platform APIs and
SpiderMonkey is the part that implement ECMAScript) side, I filed a bug to
get rid of these as it's indeed confusing to have both APIs exposed in web
pages:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=892903
IIRC, the V8 team had started implementing something (behind a flag), and
then wars on Proxy design happened, so they chose to wait for the design to
stabilize. Now may be a good time to restart
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
I'm glad I succeeded in, at least, making people wonder what that was all
about :-)
Since I've been following closely the design of proxies, I documented them on
MDN. Especially after the implementation of direct proxies in Firefox
(where I moved the documentation of the previous API to its own page and try
to explain the best I could that people should not use it). I'm happy to
improve the doc if something isn't clear (on the feature itself or
clarify the current technico-social mess of different APIs in the wild).
As a side note, to my knowledge, the only native implementation of direct
proxies is in Firefox, but it's incomplete and has known bugs. You can
see the known limitations and bugs here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=703537hide_resolved=1
(depends on section. Bug 787710 is particularly funny :-)).
If you want to play with proxies, I think that the most faithful-to-the-spec
implementation is Tom's polyfill:
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/reflect.js where he's
using the old API where available to implement the new one.
David
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
RE: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Angus Croll [anguscr...@gmail.com Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that no longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours I know Rick has already made strides in that direction via warnings like This API is superseded by the newer direct proxies API. or This proposal has progressed to the Draft ECMAScript 6 Specification (Sept. 2013 draft Sections 9.3 and 26.2), which is available for review here: specification_drafts. Any new issues relating to them should be filed as bugs at http://bugs.ecmascript.org. The content on this page is for historic record only and may no longer reflect the current state of the feature described within. But I somewhat agree that the warnings are not scary enough. Something drastic like moving the entire page to obsolete:proxies would be nice. But, eh, broken links :-/. ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
I can confirm:
npm install harmony-reflect
node --harmony
require('harmony-reflect')
and I'm good to go with ES6 proxy syntax
thanks all!
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote:
Great info thanks (and Tom and Domenic)
A note on MDN confirming that direct proxy adhered to the new spec (and a
similar one on old proxy saying it didn't) would probably be immensely
helpful to other people who had the same question I had.
Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that
no longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours
thanks!
On Oct 18, 2013, at 6:17, David Bruant bruan...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 18/10/2013 07:19, Angus Croll a écrit :
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
The latest official news is in the May 2013 TC39 notes:
https://github.com/rwaldron/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2013-05/may-21.md#44-proxies
The final design of proxies is the direct proxies design. As Tom said, a
proxy is now created doing:
var p = Proxy(target, handler)
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are aimed at disappearing.
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node --harmony-proxies' support
the Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
On the SpiderMonkey (Gecko implements the DOM and other platform APIs and
SpiderMonkey is the part that implement ECMAScript) side, I filed a bug to
get rid of these as it's indeed confusing to have both APIs exposed in web
pages:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=892903
IIRC, the V8 team had started implementing something (behind a flag), and
then wars on Proxy design happened, so they chose to wait for the design to
stabilize. Now may be a good time to restart
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
I'm glad I succeeded in, at least, making people wonder what that was all
about :-)
Since I've been following closely the design of proxies, I documented them
on MDN. Especially after the implementation of direct proxies in Firefox
(where I moved the documentation of the previous API to its own page and
try to explain the best I could that people should not use it). I'm happy
to improve the doc if something isn't clear (on the feature itself or
clarify the current technico-social mess of different APIs in the wild).
As a side note, to my knowledge, the only native implementation of direct
proxies is in Firefox, but it's incomplete and has known bugs. You can see
the known limitations and bugs here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=703537hide_resolved=1(depends
on section. Bug 787710 is particularly funny :-)).
If you want to play with proxies, I think that the most
faithful-to-the-spec implementation is Tom's polyfill:
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/reflect.js where
he's using the old API where available to implement the new one.
David
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote: From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Angus Croll [anguscr...@gmail.com Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that no longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours @Angus, I'm sorry this happened, I try to keep up with marking wiki docs' status as best as I can. I know Rick has already made strides in that direction via warnings like This API is superseded by the newer direct proxies API. or This proposal has progressed to the Draft ECMAScript 6 Specification (Sept. 2013 draft Sections 9.3 and 26.2), which is available for review here: specification_drafts. Any new issues relating to them should be filed as bugs at http://bugs.ecmascript.org. The content on this page is for historic record only and may no longer reflect the current state of the feature described within. But I somewhat agree that the warnings are not scary enough. Something drastic like moving the entire page to obsolete:proxies would be nice. But, eh, broken links :-/. I'm all for suggestions to make it _even_ _more_ _clear_, as long as those suggestions don't break links (as Domenic has mentioned here). Currently, the old proxy proposals are stricken on the harmony:proposals page and the direct proxies proposal includes the progressed to draft text. FWIW, I've added The content on this page is OBSOLETE to the three oldest proxy proposals. @Tom - since you know the status of the more recent Proxy wiki pages better than I do, would you mind adding the same h1 text to those that fit the description of obsolete? Thanks! Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
No worries guys - thanks for adding the 'obsolete' note @angustweets On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Rick Waldron waldron.r...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Domenic Denicola dome...@domenicdenicola.com wrote: From: es-discuss [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] on behalf of Angus Croll [anguscr...@gmail.com Also (to all) deleting or marking as obsolete all wiki-harmony docs that no longer meet the standard would save a lot of wasted hours @Angus, I'm sorry this happened, I try to keep up with marking wiki docs' status as best as I can. I know Rick has already made strides in that direction via warnings like This API is superseded by the newer direct proxies API. or This proposal has progressed to the Draft ECMAScript 6 Specification (Sept. 2013 draft Sections 9.3 and 26.2), which is available for review here: specification_drafts. Any new issues relating to them should be filed as bugs at http://bugs.ecmascript.org. The content on this page is for historic record only and may no longer reflect the current state of the feature described within. But I somewhat agree that the warnings are not scary enough. Something drastic like moving the entire page to obsolete:proxies would be nice. But, eh, broken links :-/. I'm all for suggestions to make it _even_ _more_ _clear_, as long as those suggestions don't break links (as Domenic has mentioned here). Currently, the old proxy proposals are stricken on the harmony:proposals page and the direct proxies proposal includes the progressed to draft text. FWIW, I've added The content on this page is OBSOLETE to the three oldest proxy proposals. @Tom - since you know the status of the more recent Proxy wiki pages better than I do, would you mind adding the same h1 text to those that fit the description of obsolete? Thanks! Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com wrote: No worries guys - thanks for adding the 'obsolete' note Don't hesitate to ask for clarification on this list—especially if you think it will save you time :) Rick ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not called and deleting is not trapped.
Am I doing something wrong?
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Tom Van Cutsem tomvc...@gmail.com wrote:
Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are deprecated.
The correct syntax is `new Proxy(target, handler)`
In my original direct proxies proposal, the `new` was optional, so that
`var p = Proxy(target, handler)` works equally well (cf.
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:direct_proxies)
Since then, it seems people want to move away from implicit construction
(since it doesn't interact well with class inheritance), so I don't know if
there is still consensus on this.
In the prototype Firefox implementation, `new` is currently mandatory.
Regards,
Tom
2013/10/18 Angus Croll anguscr...@gmail.com
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node --harmony-proxies' support
the Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
Gecko also supports what MDN indicates implies is the current Proxy
syntax (i.e. new Proxy)
e.g.
var p = new Proxy(
{},
{get: function(p,x) {
return 'Hello ' + x
}}
);
p.World; //'Hello World'
Which is right?
thanks
@angustweets
___
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
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not called and deleting is not trapped.
Am I doing something wrong?
The trap name for the `delete` operator is deleteProperty instead of
delete...
@angustweets
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
thanks André that works!
(I was going by
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/doc/traps.md which
says 'delete')
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, André Bargull andre.barg...@udo.eduwrote:
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not called and deleting is not trapped.
Am I doing something wrong?
The trap name for the `delete` operator is deleteProperty instead of
delete...
@angustweets
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Tom Van Cutsem wrote: Proxy.create and Proxy.createFunction are deprecated. The correct syntax is `new Proxy(target, handler)` In my original direct proxies proposal, the `new` was optional, so that `var p = Proxy(target, handler)` works equally well (cf. http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:direct_proxies) Since then, it seems people want to move away from implicit construction (since it doesn't interact well with class inheritance), so I don't know if there is still consensus on this. In the prototype Firefox implementation, `new` is currently mandatory. Regards, Tom This is what I currently have in my working draft of the ES6 spec: 26.2.1 The Proxy Factory Function 26.2.1.1Proxy ( target, handler) The Proxy function is used to create an irrevocable Proxy object When Proxy is called with arguments target and handler the following steps are taken: 1. Let p be ProxyCreate(target, handler). 2. Return p. 26.2.2 Properties of the Proxy Factory Function 26.2.2.1Proxy.revocable ( target, handler ) The Proxy.revocable function takes two arguments target and handler, and performs the following: The Proxy.revocable function is used to create a revocable Proxy object When Proxy.revocable is called with arguments target and handler the following steps are taken: 1. Let p be ProxyCreate(target, handler). 2. ReturnIfAbrupt(p). 3. Let revoker be a new built-in function object as defined in 26.2.2.1.1. 4. Set the [[RevokableProxy]] internal slot of revoker to p. 5. Let result be the result of ObjectCreate(). 6. CreateOwnDataProperty(result, proxy, p). 7. CreateOwnDataProperty(result, revoke, revoker). 8. Return result. 26.2.2.1.1 Proxy Revocation Functions A Proxy revocation function is an anonymous function that has the ability to invalidate a specific Proxy object. Each Proxy revocation function has a [[RevokableProxy]] internal slot. When a Proxy revocation function, F, is called the following steps are taken: 1. Let p be the value of F’s [[RevokableProxy]] internal slot. 2. If p is undefined, then return undefined. 3. Set the value of F’s [[RevokableProxy]] internal slot to undefined. 4. Assert: p is a Proxy object. 5. Set the [[ProxyTarget]] internal slot of p to undefined. 6. Set the [[ProxyHandler]] internal slot of p to undefined. 7. Return undefined. In other words: you can say: Proxy(traget,handler) but not new Proxy(target, handler) It would be easy enough to allow new Proxy(target,handler) but I'm not sure it is the best way to expose the Proxy abstraction . Proxy really isn't a class. There is no Proxy.prototype object and obj instanceof Proxy isn't useful. Also the @@create protocol really isn't right for instantiating Proxies. Subclassing a Proxy isn't going to give you anything that is useful. I think we're now in a position where it would be reasonable to say that 'new is the preferred way to instantiate instances of class-like constructors. Object that represent other kinds of abstractions shouldn't be created using 'new' but instead should be created with a simple function call (arguably, Symbol is another example where we allow Symbol() but not new Symbol()). So, I'd prefer to go with what I've currently specified, but if the concensus is for 'new' I will change it. Allen___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
On Friday, October 18, 2013, Angus Croll wrote:
thanks André that works!
(I was going by
https://github.com/tvcutsem/harmony-reflect/blob/master/doc/traps.mdwhich
says 'delete')
Cc Tom Van Cutsem to make sure he sees this.
Rick
@angustweets
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:38 AM, André Bargull
andre.barg...@udo.edujavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'andre.barg...@udo.edu');
wrote:
Follow up question for Tom et al...
Using require('harmony-reflect')
var t = {a:3, c:4};
var p = Proxy(
t,
{
get: function() {},
delete: function(t,x) {
console.log('deleting');
delete t.a;
}
}
);
delete p.c
p; //{a:3}
t; //{a:3}
the console.log is not called and deleting is not trapped.
Am I doing something wrong?
The trap name for the `delete` operator is deleteProperty instead of
delete...
@angustweets
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
has the syntax for proxies been finalized ?
I couldn't find a commitment to a specific syntax in the latest ES6
standard
Gecko, chrome experimental, traceur and 'node --harmony-proxies' support
the Proxy.create syntax (detailed in
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:proxies)
e.g.
var proxy = Proxy.create({
get: function(p, n) {
return 'Hello ' + n;
}
});
proxy.World //'Hello World'
However MDN calls the above the 'Old Proxy API'.
Gecko also supports what MDN indicates implies is the current Proxy syntax
(i.e. new Proxy)
e.g.
var p = new Proxy(
{},
{get: function(p,x) {
return 'Hello ' + x
}}
);
p.World; //'Hello World'
Which is right?
thanks
@angustweets
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
