On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the connection is commonly expected so that possibility should be > acknowledge but also emphasized as not being required. Would you concern > about implying some implicit maintenance of state be alleviated if > [[Getter]] said "called to produce" rather than "called to return"?
If the connection between [[Getter]] and [[Setter]] is clearly indicated to be "not necessary" then I think that is ok (but unnecessary.) The names "Getter" and "Setter" make the connection but perhaps a explicit note that there is no necessary connection is a good idea. Yes "produce" seems much better. How about... [[Getter]] A zero-argument function called to produce the property value each time the property read. [[Setter]] A one-argument function called with the assigned value each time the property is assigned. The effect of a property's [[Setter]] function may, but is not required to, affect the value produced by subsequent calls to the property's [[Getter]] function. > In general, I think the descriptive text in these tables need to be > considered as informative rather than normative. The normative definitions of > the getters and setters is provided by the algorithms of the specifications. > Overall, I don't this document (and its predecessors) does a very good job at > clearly distinguishing the informative from the normative. I thought these descriptions might be non-normative but it is not stated. I agree that the descriptions should be marked as non-normative. Peter _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
