Le 22/03/2011 13:12, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
2011/3/18 David Bruant bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr
mailto:bru...@enseirb-matmeca.fr
Le 16/03/2011 10:25, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
David,
This open issue is indeed one that merits further discussion here.
Some thoughts and
On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:04 AM, David Bruant wrote:
I wouldn't argue if we had: Object.defineDataProperty(o, name, enumerable,
configurable, writable, value) and Object.defineAccessorProperty(...). Or one
Object.defineProperty with ten arguments. But this is not the case.
I think that part of
Le 16/03/2011 10:25, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit :
David,
This open issue is indeed one that merits further discussion here.
Some thoughts and comments:
* I think we did come to an agreement that custom property attributes
were seen as very useful for communicating new kinds of meta-data
about
On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:43 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Unfortunately, currently, on FF4, the property descriptor is rewritten, but
with my comments on the code, you can see what results I would expect. But
the potential of having my library-specific property descriptor format is
here.
Thanks
Le 19/03/2011 01:11, Brendan Eich a écrit :
On Mar 15, 2011, at 6:43 PM, David Bruant wrote:
Unfortunately, currently, on FF4, the property descriptor is
rewritten, but with my comments on the code, you can see what results
I would expect. But the potential of having my library-specific
David,
This open issue is indeed one that merits further discussion here.
Some thoughts and comments:
* I think we did come to an agreement that custom property attributes were
seen as very useful for communicating new kinds of meta-data about objects,
and that they ought to be preserved. See
Hi,
On the proxy proposal is an open issue. It starts with How to deal with
inconsistent data returned by handler traps? (actually, the issue also
applies to inputs since I can provide garbage as Object.defineProperty
arguments). First of all, I think that there might be a false assumption
in the
7 matches
Mail list logo
