- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:31:49 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/2/13 5:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I don't think so, but I could be wrong. > > I think you're wrong. > >> I think that still ends up >> trying to do a "set" on the proxy > > It doesn't. It calls some function with thisArg set to the proxy. What > happens after that is based on the definition of that method, not anything > in the ES spec. And that definition would presumably live in WebIDL. And, regardless of what that method does, if it tries to mutate the proxy, it'll run into one of the intercepted traps. I suppose it doesn't stop you from mutating *other* things that are tangentially connected to the object, and which use a setter to trigger that logic. Maybe that's okay? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 21:32:35 UTC