new function syntax and poison pill methods
bruant.d at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 02:15:56 PDT 2012
Le 27/10/2012 03:04, Mark S. Miller a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Waldemar Horwat <waldemar at google.com
> <mailto:waldemar at google.com>> wrote:
> 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?
> AFAICT, it would mean that
I have a slightly different view. I expressed in some other messages
what was my position on standards and in my view, people agreeing on
TC39 (and to a lesser extent es-discuss) make a standard. So, if TC39
agrees on a non-configurable property for an upcoming version of the
"written-as-standard-with-ECMA-and-ISO-stamped" standard, then, that's
fine to add it in implementations in my opinion.
> if these properties become standard starting in version N+1, an
> implementation conforming to version N must either
> * not have these properties,
> * must have them be configurable, or
> * must instead claim that it is now attempting conformance with N+1.
Your second choice may be impractical. If a property is shipped in
browsers as configurable, content (library, website...) may depend on
that characteristics, potentially making the move from configurable to
non-configurable impossible without breaking the web.
If a property has been agreed on as non-configurable by TC39, there is
certainly a good reason (because by default, everything agreed upon is
configurable) and it has to be shipped as non-configurable from day one
in my opinion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss