On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 2:10 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 15/06/2011 23:01, Tom Van Cutsem a écrit : > > Just realized: even though an arrayProxy could update its fixed > > "length" property, it would not be able to intercept updates "from the > > outside" (i.e. updates to "length" by objects other than the handler). > > I guess that capability is also needed to be able to "shrink" an array > > if its "length" is decreased. > > There's something I don't understand about this whole conversation. Why does > our emulated array need to claim that its length property is a > non-configurable data property, as opposed to > * a non-configurable accessor property > * a configurable data property > * a configurable accessor property > ? > There can't be any ES3 code that would be broken by any of these other > choices, since ES3 code can't ask about these attributes.
ES5 code can. Isn't that enough of an objection? People are filing bugs over such observable (with ES5's meta-object API) differences among engines, especially in the DOM where this is driving the WebIDL spec. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
