On Jun 30, 2010, at 7:37 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > And you're right that attribute-property-missing -> undefined -> false has an > effect here. If we had kept the ES3 negative names, we could have defaulted > to false and Erik (I think) would not find Object.create a mistake -- but > then the high-integrity-by-default fans would be put out. Those fans should > speak up if they care to defend against the "mistake" charge. > > Fine. Had it defaulted to low integrity, that would have been a mistake. Erik > & I know we disagree on this.
Allen seems to agree with Erik. Is this just a matter of personal opinion? The point that I don't see you responding to is that the Object.create defaults are opposite from what every other way of binding a property in the language uses. Ok, that could be answered by arguing that Object.create needs different defaults for different use-cases from those other property-creating forms. But then the current thread brought up a Rhino extension that does not use the high-integrity defaults. So here we are. What is the common case, in current best practices? Is it really high-integrity with opt-out? /be > > > Anyway, ES5 is done. Life goes on, though, with Harmony. There's not much > that can be done about the default attribute values and the sense of their > names, Same for Object.keys vs. Object.getOwnPropertyNames > method-naming-style disparity. Food for thought, in order to do better in the > future. > > The naming inconsistency here actually is a mistake. I do regret it, but I > also agree it's too late to fix it. > > > /be > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > -- > Cheers, > --MarkM > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
