[Harmony Proxies] Proposal: Property fixing
brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Jun 16 09:15:45 PDT 2011
On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:09 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 16/06/2011 17:46, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr> wrote:
>> The question raised by Mark is: "should objects with noticeable custom internal method (array, host objects, proxies...) be allowed to prentend having data property even if some logic is triggered under the hood?".
>> Almost, and thanks for trying to summarize. My question is
>> "Should ... be allowed to pretend having a *non-configurable* data property ...?"
>> A perfectly fine answer to the array.length issue is to have length be a configurable data property so long as it needs to operate in a magical manner. For all such problematic magical behavior, we should likewise report the property as configurable so long as it needs to operate in a magical manner.
> Currently, the "configurable" attributes has two meanings. At the same time it tells who whether or not you can delete the property and whether or not you can reconfigure (call to Object.defineProperty) your property. If I understand well, you would like it also to tell whether the property is magical or not.
Implementations need the no-delete aspect. We should not change that for Array length.
Freezing length is another use-case not to break, of course. No one disagrees there (we just have a SpiderMonkey bug to fix).
> If we are at a point where we'd break Object.defineProperty return values, shouldn't we add new keywords rather than adding semantics to current attribute keywords?
We should have no more attribute "keywords" in property descriptors than we need to model the semantics we wish to reflect on via Object.* APIs and intercede in via proxies. Do we really want to split "DontDelete" back out of "configurable"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss