On Jun 30, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Brendan Eich wrote: > 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.
I think the fact that you have to go out of your way to get normal defaults is a considerable inconvenience in many situations. I think Object.create would be easier to deploy if its defaults matched other ways of creating properties. Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
