[Harmony Proxies] Proposal: Property fixing

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Thu Jun 16 16:14:38 PDT 2011


On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Perhaps the WebIDL spec should be revised in exactly the same we we're
currently talking about revised arrays?



>
> /be
>
>


-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110616/49cae560/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list