new function syntax and poison pill methods

Kevin Reid kpreid at
Fri Oct 26 15:23:54 PDT 2012

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at> wrote:

>  I think the oddity I note is a consequence of the too loose paragraph in
> section 2:
> "A conforming implementation of ECMAScript is permitted to provide
> additional types, values, objects, properties, and functions beyond those
> described in this specification. In particular, a conforming implementation
> of ECMAScript is permitted to provide properties not described in this
> specification, and values for those properties, for objects that are
> described in this specification."
> Instead of having an "there is no 'caller' nor 'arguments' property at
> all" rule, maybe it would be a good idea to refine this paragraph to say
> what's permitted and what is not.
> For instance, mention that for function objects, there cannot be a
> property (regardless of its name!) providing access to the caller function
> during runtime, etc.
> With this kind of refinement (potentially reminded as a note in the
> relevant subsections), it may be easier to share and document the intent of
> what is acceptable to provide as authority and more importantly what is not.

How about: there must be no *nonstandard non-configurable properties* of
standard objects.

This directly implies “SES can do its job of deleting everything not
whitelisted”, and does not rely on the spec blacklisting undesirable
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list