On Jun 17, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
I agree that it is problematic to spec. things related to extensions that are not part of the spec. In this particular case I wouldn't talk about __proto__ at all. What I would do is specify that the value of an object's [[Prototype]] internal property many not be modified if the value of its [[Extensible]] property is false.
As I just wrote in reply to Mark, I'm good with this.
BTW, I haven't yet perceived that we have consensus on putting this into ES5. My interpretation of Brendan's initial comments on the matter was that he was opposed to it for ES5. (I'm sure he'll let us know whether or not that is correct).
It's late in the game, but a sentence about [[Prototype]] seems doable. I defer to you on this, since you're Editor and it'll fall upon you to draft the change.
Personally, while it is a quite plausible embellishment of what we already have specified, I think it is very late for such additions and I'm somewhat skeptical of the actual impact of such prophylactic requirement on implementers who think they have a good idea that collides with the restriction.
This was where I voiced more general skepticism about "security", but we can still fix what's known to be broken, if there's time. And I foresee no problem for implementors or developers with new ES5 APIs, all of which are "opt in", breaking assignable __proto__.
/be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
