B.3.1 The __proto__ pseudo property

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Sun Apr 21 18:12:12 PDT 2013

We're not concerned if there is *any* such implementation. We care about
the intersection of enough implementations that it becomes an issue for
cross-browser code. And code that only works on one browser has been code
that we've always[1] been willing to break going forward.

[1] At least during all the time I've been on the committee.

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com> wrote:

> Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> For all parties, some examples of legacy uses of {__proto__: ....},
>> whether hypothetical or observed, would help a lot. I doubt the stance
>> "special literal syntax for initializing [[Prototype]] without using either
>> [[Put]]/[[Set]] nor [[DefineOwnProperty]]" would be incompatible with web
>> reality.
> It's possible we could make the change and nothing would break. Usually
> the burden of proof is on the people proposing the change, though (you and
> Allen).
> If no implementation supports reconfiguration (delete or replacement) of
> Object.prototype.__proto__, then as you note, it can't yet matter and
> there's no observable compatibility break. But is there no such
> implementation?
> /be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130421/fc5cfd39/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list