Function identity of non-configurable accessors
bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Dec 22 07:35:38 PST 2012
Le 21/12/2012 20:19, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
> Given that there are plenty of cases where the configurable:true
> "contract" is violated (i.e. non-deletable configurable properties),
> and that it is still possible to fix the 3 violations of the
> configurable:false contract, I think I'm swayed to simply go for
> configurable:true getters/setters that refuse to be updated.
> Also, with proxies, it becomes easy for user-defined abstractions to
> violate the configurable:true contract as well. So there's little
> point in pretending that configurable:true implies any universal
That's exactly how I think about it. I've failed to express it as
concisely, but I fully agree with this view.
From this point on, if there is value for an object to be assigned
configurable non-deletable properties or reflect existing properties as
such, ideas like deletable:false (see discussion starting at ) can
still be considered.
More information about the es-discuss