W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Would it make sense for Web IDL [[Call]] to do the current execution context munging that ES6 functions' default [[Call]] does?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 14:31:53 -0400
Message-ID: <53FF7599.7060505@mit.edu>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 8/28/14, 2:22 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>> I say mostly, because there _are_ some cases where Web IDL defines its own [[Call]].  Specifically, for constructors and legacycallers.  Is there a way those [[Call]] definitions could just have the steps of #sec-built-in-function-objects-call-thisargument-argumentslist performed without copy/pasting them?
> That's fine.  You should be able to do whatever you need as part of the step 7 or 9 extension points.

Not quite, because at least the legacycaller case is not a Function 
object at all.  So it really does need to define a [[Call]] in its entirety.

> Or, you can define a new [[Call]] that is a superset of that specified in 9.3.1.

Right.  I guess we can just say to perform the steps in 9.3.1 with step 
9 being whatever it is we actually want to do?

Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 18:32:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC