B.3.1 The __proto__ pseudo property

Mark Miller erights at gmail.com
Sun Apr 21 19:34:42 PDT 2013


Hi Andrea, Allen's immediately previous sentence was

"The point is that I don't think there is any long standing behavior in
this regard relating to object literals and deleting
Object.prototype.__proto__ that the web is dependent upon."

This sets the context for understanding Allen's next sentence. We are
constrained by cross-browser legacy. So long as IE was not planning to
implement __proto__, we avoided standardizing it. In the current situation,
TC39 is powerless to prevent __proto__ becoming a cross-browser standard.
Our only choices are

1) We design and codify a spec that all these browsers can agree on, that
does not break existing cross-browser (IE aside) web content, and that is
as clean as possible *within* those constraints.
2) We do not do so, in which case each browser gropes separately to be
compatible enough with what the other browsers seem to be doing.

And example of the consequences of #2 is the wildly different and often
bizarre semantics of block nested functions. This was the consequence of
omitting these from "official" JavaScript in a social/political context
where all browsers felt compelled to implement them anyway. They groped
towards compatibility without coordination and arrived at painfully
incoherent results. (Fortunately, we were able to quarantine this
bizarreness to sloppy mode.)

As a standards committee, we need to be realistic about when we can
exercise normative power and when we can't. I'll even agree that, when
we're uncertain, we should err on the side of cleaning things up. Until IE
changed expectation, we were doing exactly that by avoiding __proto__.
Today, we no longer have that happy uncertainty.



On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
>
>> We are free to specify a semantics that will make sense, now and for the
>> long term.
>>
>>
> then, for the long term, if all I understood about this thing is that
> stinks for everybody, you should really consider to give developers the
> possibility to get rid of this property completely, if desired, instead of
> making it indestructible, IMHO
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

  Cheers,
  --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130421/de50a799/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list