On Mar 18, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
> Other examples:
> https://github.com/DmitrySoshnikov/es-laboratory/blob/master/examples/create.js
Thanks, this is helpful.
> So the mutable __proto__ (no matter in which name and view) can be
> standardized only if (1) no security issues, (2.1) practically needed or
> (2.2) just "a cool stuff of dynamic languages" with unfortunately small
> practical application.
(1) is more about quality of implementation, extensions vs. fuzz-re-testing,
and general cost of mutable __proto__. The verdict in my experience is negative.
(2.1) is false on its face: we can provide narrower special forms to cover the
"define" (set on a newborn or otherwise-inaccessible object) use-case.
(2.2) is not just false, but permanently so: "no" on its face. You can't
justify an intrusive feature with buzzword momentum.
> To avoid i-looping, Object.setPrototype(object, parent); is better than
> __proto__ of course.
Assignable __proto__ requires cycle checking with an exception thrown on
detected cycle, of course. Implementations already do this check, and I do not
see how Object.setProottypeOf avoids the need for it.
In terms of standardization, Object.setPrototypeOf is a non-starter.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
