is [[Prototype]] of global object intentionally unspecified?

Michael Ficarra es-discuss at michael.ficarra.me
Mon Aug 5 07:20:00 PDT 2013


Oh, sorry for the duplicate. It appears you guys were just recently
discussing this, though it failed to turn up in my searches. For what it's
worth, I would prefer for it to be specified that the global object's
prototype chain must include Object.prototype. I am sure there's plenty of
code that depends on that.
On 5 Aug 2013 02:54, "Alan Schmitt" <alan.schmitt at polytechnique.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> es-discuss at michael.ficarra.me writes:
>
> > It has recently come to my attention that, though Object.prototype is in
> > the prototype chain of the global object in all interpreters I've ever
> > used, the [[Prototype]] of the global object is actually unspecified. My
> > question: was this property intentionally unspecified to allow for
> > interpreters to use other objects (or null) as the [[Prototype]] of the
> > global object? If so, it'd be great to add a note to the spec. If not,
> I'd
> > be glad to open a bugzilla bug to correct the omission. Either way, I
> think
> > the spec should explicitly mention this value.
>
> Here is the related bug report for the test262 test that also assumes
> this.
>
> https://bugs.ecmascript.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1600
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alan Schmitt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130805/a92c0323/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list