From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbar...@mit.edu]
> I'm open to whatever spec language we care to write which allows the variety > of implementation strategies we want to allow while providing the guarantees > we desire. OK, great. What I was trying to point out was that by speccing a sufficiently powerful proxy object we could stay entirely within ES semantics, instead of redefining the === operator. It sounded like you were proposing speccing a world where multiple different objects get minted and then we override the definition of ===, but I guess you were just talking about implementation strategies, and were not making a spec proposal.
