Jan 29 TC39 Meeting Notes
bruant.d at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 01:17:55 PST 2013
Le 09/02/2013 00:39, Claude Pache a écrit :
> Since BC is not an issue, let's pick the semantic that is most conform to the existing Ecmascript object model, and let's not invent a "weird: true" property descriptor just because we think that __proto__ deserves one.
> The goal is to standardise the least weird thing possible. Indeed, backward-compat doesn't care.
*The* goal if any is to standardize the minimum set of properties that
the web relies on (and Microsoft can implement to support existing
mobile websites (ab)using __proto__).
In my opinion, a couple of properties should go along:
* it should be compulsory that __proto__ was deletable
* It would be preferable that there was no usable extractable setter
(because it increases attack opportunities).
* it would be preferable that __proto__ doesn't work on non-extensible
Beyond that, any detail, as long as it's localized to Object.prototype,
is unimportant. Although __proto__ reaches the spec, it doesn't make it
a feature people should be encouraged to use. In my opinion, the only
thing devs should know about is that it's a de-facto standard, in the
spec because of economical constraints and that the only thing they
should do with it is "delete Object.prototype.__proto__" (which is why
anything beyond "__proto__ must be deletable" is at most a preference,
in my opinion again).
Given that the good practice is to delete __proto__, both "conforming to
what exists in the object model" and aiming at the "least weird thing
possible" are probably over-engineering; "magic: true" is as bad as any
Coin tossing is as good as any other mean to decide the details.
More information about the es-discuss