classes and enumerability
bzbarsky at mit.edu
Wed Dec 24 21:50:28 PST 2014
On 12/24/14 9:34 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Something is quirky if we want mostly-consistent non-enumerability of
> proto-methods/accessors. Either core built-ins, or DOM. Sorry if
> "quirky" sounds pejorative
It sure does at least to me.
> Hey, it's me, the JS perpetrator, here :-P.
Yes, I know. ;)
> I assure you I was not suffering from us v. them or multiple
> personalities back then! :-P
> Seriously, the main problem over time has been W3C vs. Ecma, but I'm not
> blaming the standards bodies (only or mostly). It's a separation of
> concerns that mixed badly with Java heads, XML heads, and the IE
> monopoly. Bygones.
Indeed. I wish this was bygones, though... Would love us to get there.
> Back to the present: we have to pick a "default" setting. I think
> non-enumerability wins, as noted.
That's my gut feeling too, esp. if we can de-Conway.
> Anyone have the jwz nostalgia releases of old browsers such as Netscape
If you'd asked this question 3 years ago, when I still had access to
some Solaris workstations with all sorts of old stuff on them, I might
have been able to do that for you. Certainly Netscape 4.
That said, web searching suggests
http://sillydog.org/narchive/full123.php might have these things. I
expect only the Windows versions are at all likely to be runnable on a
More information about the es-discuss