Closed
Bug 788172
Opened 12 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
Proxy is not a function (typeof Proxy should be 'function')
Categories
(Core :: JavaScript Engine, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla25
People
(Reporter: bruant.d, Assigned: jorendorff)
References
(Depends on 1 open bug, Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-complete, site-compat, Whiteboard: [js:p2])
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
14.42 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Additionally to typeof, "Proxy" should be callable and do the same thing as "new Proxy"
Updated•12 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [js:p2]
Updated•12 years ago
|
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All
Assignee | ||
Updated•12 years ago
|
Assignee: general → jorendorff
Summary: typeof Proxy === 'object' (it should be 'function') → Proxy is not a function (typeof Proxy should be 'function')
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•12 years ago
|
||
The spec is vague at present but this seems clearly what's intended. With this patch, Proxy(...) behaves exactly like new Proxy(...). I thought it should get at least a little test coverage, so in addition to the obvious tests I also did s/new Proxy/Proxy/g on jit-test/tests/proxytest*1.js, arbitrarily switching a few existing tests to the new syntax.
Attachment #685134 -
Flags: review?(ejpbruel)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Review ping! (I know, king of hypocrites here)
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 685134 [details] [diff] [review] v1 Review of attachment 685134 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patch looks good Jason! No comments. I do have a question though: what exactly are cached protos?
Attachment #685134 -
Flags: review?(ejpbruel) → review+
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
We should get this rebased and landed.
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
I have rebased the old patch. Should be good to land now!
Attachment #685134 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #757415 -
Flags: review?(ejpbruel)
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 757415 [details] [diff] [review] rebased patch Review of attachment 757415 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Looks like this patch was rebased, but never landed, probably because it was flagged for review. In general, I don't think its necessary to review a patch again if its a simple rebase.
Attachment #757415 -
Flags: review?(ejpbruel) → review+
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
Rebased the patch once again.
Attachment #757415 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•11 years ago
|
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/09dcdc2b2120
Keywords: checkin-needed
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/09dcdc2b2120
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla25
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Added: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/25/Site_Compatibility
Keywords: dev-doc-complete,
site-compat
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•