Question regarding duplicate computed __proto__ properties

[Fred Schott]

Filed as Bug 3510. Thanks for the confirmation, Allen.

—
Sent from Mailbox

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
wrote:

> On Jan 4, 2015 9:06 PM, Fred Schott <fkschott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In Section B.3.1 on "__proto__ Property Names in Object Initializers" there is a paragraph explaining when duplicate properties will result in a syntax error. It says:
>>
>>> It is a Syntax Error if PropertyNameList of PropertyDefinitionList contains any duplicate entries for "__proto__" and at least two of those entries were obtained from productions of the form PropertyDefinition : PropertyName : AssignmentExpression .
>>
>>
>> Where PropertyName is defined as: 
>>
>>> PropertyName[Yield,GeneratorParameter] :
>>>   LiteralPropertyName
>>>   [+GeneratorParameter] ComputedPropertyName
>>>   [~GeneratorParameter] ComputedPropertyName[?Yield]
>>>
>>> LiteralPropertyName :
>>>   IdentifierName
>>>   StringLiteral
>>>   NumericLiteral
>>
>>
>> That paragraph (using the definitions provided) seems to assert that it is a syntax error if there are any duplicate uses of __proto__ with an IdentifierName, StringLiteral, or ComputedPropertyName. To translate this into an example, it seems to assert that in ES6 this is not valid:
>>
>>> var obj = {
>>>   __proto__: somePrototype,
>>>   ["__proto__"]: somePrototype
>>> } 
>>>
>>> // Error: SyntaxError
> No, this is not supposed to be a syntax error.
>>
>>
>> Is that correct? Step 6 of Section B.3.1 explicitly states that the computed ["__proto__"] does not have the same special behavior as the literal property. But from my understanding of other es-discuss topics & resources, the restriction on duplicate "__proto__" properties also does not apply to computed properties. If that is true, then the quoted paragraph above seems to be incorrect or misleading.
>>
>> Can anyone clarify this? I may just be misunderstanding the docs and/or the recent discussions. Or it could be that the definition has changed around that quoted paragraph and it needs to be updated.
> The latter. Please file a bug at bugs.ecmascript.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150104/c3a43415/attachment.html>