Fwd: Function identity of non-configurable accessors

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Tue Dec 18 08:49:14 PST 2012


[Reposted at David's request.]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: Function identity of non-configurable accessors
To: David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com>



On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:08 AM, David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com> wrote:

>  [off-list]
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I have an email with the conclusions on the whole WindowProxy thing and
> ramifications to be cross-posted to es-discuss and public-script-coord.
> There are one remaining pending issues about function identity of
> non-configurable accessors. There are 2 main ideas:
> * Allow non-configurable accessors to change the getter/setter functions
>

That is unacceptable. That breaks the intended invariants. That this
invariant isn't specified is an oversight.



>  * Don't allow to change the functions and for WindowProxy, define
> functions to have a special deeply frozen Function.prototype and
> Object.prototype ("null realm" solution championed by Brendan).
>

That could work, but because of its complexity, I'm leaning back towards
the "configurable data property that refuses to be configured" approach. Is
there a problem with that? It self-hosts fine.



>
> Since you're concerned about ES invariants, could you share your opinion
> on the topic as well as give your opinion on the different proposed
> solutions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121218/0595218f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list