On Jul 3, 6:16 pm, Hannes Wallnoefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 3, 10:15 pm, Norris Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yep, I think Rhino's behavior should be different: for an assignment > > to a property with only a getter defined, the assignment should cancel > > out the getter. > > But shouldn't defining a getter without a setter imply the property is > read-only? At least that's the behaviour documented for getters > defined via jsGet_/jsSet_: > > http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/apidocs/org/mozilla/javascript/Scriptabl...) > > I'm not sure generic java getters and setters are handled the same > way, and I'm not sure they should be. But at least it's conceivable > that people have been using it this way, so it might be a good idea to > be careful with changes here. > > hannes > > > I've createdhttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=443491and > > have a fix. > > > --Norris
Well, this is an API call where there is a flag passed in that can be set to read only, or not. The specific case mentioned in this post is when the property is not read only. It is an odd case; you could also argue it should just be an error not to have the property set to read only when you only supply a getter, but then there's a larger backwards compatibility issue. --N _______________________________________________ dev-tech-js-engine-rhino mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-rhino
