- From: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:50:47 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:27, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > No need for proxies. Any property with a setter can enforce whatever > restrictions it wants on the arguments passed to that setter. You can only have setters for known properties which would only work for fixed length arrays. > But since we're talking about "host" objects, why are we excluding proxies, > anyway, exactly? ... > That's a really bad antipattern where a failure is reported at a point far > separated from where it actually happens. Sometimes that just has to be, > but in those cases it's a necessary evil, not a desired property. I'm with you here. These kind of objects would be painful to use if they do not throw on [[Put]]. I'd rather have painless magical host objects than painful js objects. -- erik
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 17:51:45 UTC