- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:28:13 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:16 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > OK, that is indeed what I’m hearing from you guys. “Host objects may > implement these [internal] methods in any manner unless specified > otherwise” in ES3 doesn’t sound like it’s particularly discouraging of > the different behaviour that Web IDL prescribes. That is regrettable ES1-era language, written to accommodate the "host objects" found prominently in IE due to too-low-level COM integration. It should have come with color commentary advising against exploiting the barn-door-sized loopholes. >> Why is functionality that isn't available through native objects >> needed? > > For web compatibility, really. Web Storage is a recent example of something other than web compatibility at work. Imitation of what went before, keystroke- optimization to use the short property reference expression instead of get/put/remove methods, or both, AFAICT. > Ignoring the legacy issues, assuming we have ES5 to build on, then > yeah > it seems like most things can be done (from Maciej’s quick analysis). > The array like objects do seem like a useful pattern for authors to > use, > though. Seems like everyone agrees Array-likes are not the issue. /be
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 06:28:56 UTC