- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 23:05:39 -0700
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, annevk@opera.com
On 10/7/10, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Garrett Smith: >> My statement in the previous paragraph is regarding the algorithm for >> [[Construct]], as specified in ECMA-262. Were you discussing a >> different [[Construct]]? > > Ah, I (mis-)interpreted it as a comment on all objects’ [[Construct]], > be they native or host objects. > So by "[[Construct]]" you meant something other than [[Construct]] defined in ECMA-262, or what? What you are calling "[[Construct]]" is apparently not the same thing specified in ECMA-262 r3, is that right? Using an existing and normatively-specified term to describe a new routine seems like a good way to spread confusion. Either use the existing term with its existing meaning or create a new term. [...] >> How can an object implement [[Construct]] but not [[Call]]? > > It can if it is a host object and it has a [[Construct]] which is > different from the one defined for native Function objects in ECMA-262. > Then there is no need for it to have [[Call]]. > What do you base that on? And where is this other [[Construct]] specified? It is not necessary to specify a language extension here. Language extensions just create more disparity between real ECMAScript and WebIDL ECMAScript. (That's bad.) [...] > I think this isn’t strictly needed, since I believe you can have host > objects that implement [[Construct]] but not [[Call]]. > ECMA-262 specifies [[Construct]] which says otherwise. Can you explain why you think this is so? -- Garrett
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 06:06:12 UTC