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