On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brandon Benvie <bbenvie at mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2013 11:01 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
>>
>> What your question does help me be more decisive on: We should not be in a
>> rush to add an Invoke, InvokeFunction, or any new traps not needed for
>> membranes, and not subject to a long history of examination. Invoke at
>> least, as a derived trap, can always be added later, after ES6.
>
>
> Isn't there observably different behavior different depending on whether
> invoke exists or not? Even if you don't implement it in your handler? If
> that's the case, then it's not guaranteed that it can be added later down
> the line.

I share this concern. Last time we discussed it, Brendan said that we
could implement it by falling back to .get if .invoke isn't
defined[1]. I'm not sure how well that fits into the rest of the Proxy
design, though.


[1]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-September/033610.html

>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Brandon Benvie <bbenvie at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Isn't there observably different behavior different depending on whether
> invoke exists or not? Even if you don't implement it in your handler? If
> that's the case, then it's not guaranteed that it can be added later down
> the line.

I share this concern. Last time we discussed it, Brendan said that we
could implement it by falling back to .get if .invoke isn't
defined [1]. I'm not sure how well that fits into the rest of the Proxy
design, though.


[1]: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-September/033610.html