> OTOH we don't need to standardize __proto__. We might instead poison-pill it
> in Harmony, so opting in involves an early error on every use of __proto__,
> and you have to migrate by switching to Object.getPrototypeOf or an object
> initialiser extension that allows presetting the new object's prototype chain
> link.
I know you aren't recommending this, but I just want to add more reasons why
it's a bad idea. It would preserve the specialness of "__proto__" when the hope
is that we could eventually get to a point where it's not special anymore;
that's the point of Object.getPrototypeOf being a static method. Forcing every
object to have special magic properties breaks abstractions and breaks use
cases like object-as-table.
And an early error just means people would hack around it by using
obj["__proto__"] or obj[(function(){return "__proto__"})()] or whatever they
needed to circumvent the static analysis -- assuming we don't solve the halting
problem in the meantime, of course. ;)
> My argument leaves us with __proto__ as non-standard extension, to wean
> people off of if we can, via docs and evangelism. This seems a better course
> to me than premature (anti-)standardization.
Agreed, 100%.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
