new function syntax and poison pill methods

David Bruant 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.

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20121028/16f73ffb/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list