[Harmony Proxies] Proposal: Property fixing

Sean Eagan seaneagan1 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 06:15:28 PDT 2011

Sorry, I meant remove the configurability check of the
"getOwnPropertyDescriptor" and "getPropertyDescriptor" trap return
values, and add a check as to whether the "defineProperty" trap return
value is an object to fix the property to.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Sean Eagan <seaneagan1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> How about *optional* property fixing as a compromise?  We could
> replace the configurability check of the "defineProperty" trap return
> value with a check of whether the return value is an object, in which
> case it would be treated as a property descriptor to fix the property
> to, otherwise the return value would just be ignored.
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:18 AM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr> wrote:
>> Le 16/06/2011 00:53, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:10 PM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr> wrote:
>>> In a way, the fixed properties proposal make proxies bicephal. For some
>>> inputs (property names), they plug their handler-provided MOP-brain and
>>> for some others, they plug a native object MOP-brain (ES5 - 8.12). These
>>> brains cannot communicate. This is why changing .length in the "native
>>> object brain" has no effect in the other brain (which handles numeric
>>> properties(...unless some of these are non-configurable)). And I think
>>> it has been said before, but there would be no logging possible for
>>> non-configurable properties in the context of the fixed properties
>>> strawman since native MOP-brain doesn't allow that.
>> Cute metaphor. But as Tom's code showed, the proxy can create fixed
>> (non-configurable) accessor properties whose getters and setters form a
>> corpus callosum ;).
>> Interactions with getter/setter is already a good thing, but I think it's
>> not enough. ES5 offers a very fine-grained API to study objects. If we
>> pretend to be able to emulate arrays based on proxies, we should be able to
>> emulate everything including answering correctly when it comes to "is it a
>> data or an accessor property descriptor?".
>> For instance, for a data property descriptor, even if non-configurable,
>> "writable" can be changed from true to false (then it cannot be changed
>> afterward). This behavior is not possible when dealing with getter/setters.
>> With fixed properties Tom's code, it is not possible to change an array's
>> length from writable to not writable. Trying to do so would throw an error
>> (because the property is non-configurable and any attempt to switch from
>> accessor to data property descriptor throw an error (or just reject?)).
>> I'd like to insist on the ability for proxies to be able to emulate native
>> arrays (and new ES5 Object.* API interaction in particular) especially
>> because currently, SpiderMonkey has a problem with redefining ".length" on
>> arrays. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=598996
>> I wish proxies to be able to compensate if there is such a bug (in any ES
>> implementation) and I need this level of spec conformance.
>> This discredits the current fixed properties proposal (especially the
>> getter/setter compensation code), I think.
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> --
> Sean Eagan

Sean Eagan

More information about the es-discuss mailing list