Mark S. Miller
erights at google.com
Sat Jan 28 20:50:33 PST 2012
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
> I don't think we should change __proto__ unnecessarily from current
> implementations, including making it an accessor. Neither JSC nor
> SpiderMonkey does that.
> We do need the ability to delete it, so it should live on Object.prototype
> and be configurable.
> Ignoring the "don't gild the lily" (or "don't polish the turd") advice
> above, if we *do* reflect __proto__ as an accessor, then the same-frame
> problem still exists. Perhaps it can be solved by proxies, but why require
I didn't follow that. The current strawman <
in step 2 of [[ProtoSetter]]:
2. If O is not an object from this context, throw a *TypeError*
I don't say anything about how this test is performed because we don't yet
know how we'll represent the extra bookkeeping needed to spec the
interaction of multiple globals. This is inter-frame protection only.
I like your proposal because I think the intra-frame protection it provides
is nice. But I don't think it is essential. If __proto__ does reflect as an
accessor as currently stated in the strawman, with the inter-frame
restriction, I think that would be ok.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss