Call for opinions: attribute defaults and renaming "flexible"

Ingvar von Schoultz ingvar-v-s at comhem.se
Fri Sep 5 22:48:23 PDT 2008


Brendan Eich skrev:
> On Sep 5, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
> 
>> Has this been checked by spidering? I'd really be surprised if
>> assignment to these properties is frequent enough to be a problem
>> in any way.
> 
> Spidering is not sufficient, only suggestive. If you find more than a 
> few true positives, you probably can't make the change. If you find 
> nothing, you don't know what is behind firewalls and pay- or 
> registration-walls. It would take several beta cycles of a major browser 
> to be more sure, and you still might get in trouble later. Probably you 
> could tough it out if you made through the beta period.
> 
> I'm not volunteering Firefox 3.1 for this, we've got enough on that burner.

So then you consider correcting this bug too risky for opt-in
by language version number?

In that case, suppose instead silent failure is limited to
those few objects only. The rule could be simple: All native
constructors, all RegExp instances, and .length on functions.

If making exceptions seems too inconsistent, consider that
the silent failure matters only very little on these objects
since users aren't developing them. It's completely different
and much more serious when we're dealing with objects that
the user is working on all the time, building complicated
structures that change daily. Then you really need information
early when things go wrong at some point hidden somewhere
deep inside the structure.

All the costs and considerations are completely different,
so consistency would be the wrong ideal here.

-- 
Ingvar von Schoultz


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list