I am attempting to Proxy()
a Set()
However, you haven't used any of the available traps - there is no add
one. All that you can intercept in the call p.add(55)
is the property access to .add
on the proxy, which goes through the get
trap and returns a function.
If you want to intercept calls to the add
method, you don't need a proxy at all, better (subclass and) overwrite that method similar to how .set
was overridden here and here for Map
.
proxying a Set()
in any way breaks it categorically
Yes, because the proxy is not a Set
any more.
var s = new Set([42]);
var p = new Proxy(s, {});
s.has(42) // true
console.log(s === p) // false
p.has.call(s, 42) // true
p.has(42) // exception - calls `has` on `p`, not on `s`
Calling Set
methods on objects that are no True Sets does throw an exception (which e.g. can be used for detecting them). For your particular case, see ECMAScript 6 §23.2.3.1:
"If S
does not have a [[SetData]]
internal slot, throw a TypeError
exception."
And indeed, p
is a proxy (which does have the internal Proxy methods and slots, especially [[ProxyHandler]]
and [[ProxyTarget]]
) instead of a set like s
with its [[SetData]]
internal slot.
You reasonably were expecting that "if a trap has not been defined, the default behavior is to forward the operation to the target", however that only applies to standard behaviours like property access, and not the internal slots of exotic objects.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…