[Harmony Proxies] Proposal: Property fixing

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.com
Thu Jun 16 16:05:11 PDT 2011


On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:13 AM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr> wrote:
> Le 16/06/2011 18:15, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
> > In summary, "configurable" was never a guarantee of anything.
> > "non-configurable" was the only state that came with guarantees. Let's
> > not weaken those.
> Ok, with this defintion, it makes sense to not let proxies lie on
> property configurability.
> So does it even make sense to want non-configurable (fixed) properties
> on proxies?
> Back to Sean's initial e-mail on this thread, why would we want
> individual non-configurable properties on proxies?
> 
> As a side note, if all properties are described as configurable, then, a
> forwarding proxy will not properly forward when it comes to returning a
> property descriptor if the target has a non-configurable property.
> 
> As far are I can tell, the only reason anyone is asking for non-configurable properties on trapping proxies is the issue raised by your side note. But for this issue, I see no need to allow fixing of individual properties on trapping proxies.

There is a second reason, mentioned recently: we are implementing the DOM on top of proxies, and the current WebIDL spec has non-configurable properties induced in its normative ES bindings from the IDL syntax. We want to match the spec.

/be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110616/431412d3/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list