Function identity of non-configurable accessors

David Bruant bruant.d at
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 
> invariants.
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 [1]) can 
still be considered.



More information about the es-discuss mailing list