new function syntax and poison pill methods

Waldemar Horwat waldemar at
Fri Oct 26 17:45:28 PDT 2012

On 10/26/2012 03:23 PM, Kevin Reid wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Bruant <bruant.d at <mailto: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.

Wouldn't that just preclude us from ever adding new standard non-configurable properties to standard objects in the future?


More information about the es-discuss mailing list