I did some digging and I can't find any specific record of this decisions but it was probably briefly discussed at the Sept. 2008 TC39 meeting in Redmond as the change first appears in a set of changes prepared by Mark Miller that are labeled "post-redmond".
I think this is a good change that should stand as is. Given that, there is variance between IE and FF, and also between FF/Chrome and Safari/Opera it seems very unlikely that any interoperable code depends upon this enumerability, one way or another. It should however be listed Annex E. Allen >-----Original Message----- >From: P T Withington [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 11:34 AM >To: Brendan Eich >Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock; Mark S. Miller; [email protected] >Subject: Re: (function foo(){}).propertyIsEnumerable("prototype"): true >or false? > >On 2009-09-04, at 13:24, Brendan Eich wrote: > >> I hope it doesn't break anything on the web. It could, because using >> for-in to inspect properties and extend base objects with copies of >> them is standard practice (Doug's "Swiss inheritance", search for >> "Swiss" in http://www.cosmik.com/aa-october99/stan_freberg.html). > >One small datapoint: OpenLaszlo does not expect enumerability of >function prototypes. We learned by trial and error that browsers >varied and work around that for both inspecting and extending. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
