On Jun 16, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:13 AM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 16/06/2011 18:15, Mark S. Miller a écrit : > > In summary, "configurable" was never a guarantee of anything. > > "non-configurable" was the only state that came with guarantees. Let's > > not weaken those. > Ok, with this defintion, it makes sense to not let proxies lie on > property configurability. > So does it even make sense to want non-configurable (fixed) properties > on proxies? > Back to Sean's initial e-mail on this thread, why would we want > individual non-configurable properties on proxies? > > As a side note, if all properties are described as configurable, then, a > forwarding proxy will not properly forward when it comes to returning a > property descriptor if the target has a non-configurable property. > > As far are I can tell, the only reason anyone is asking for non-configurable > properties on trapping proxies is the issue raised by your side note. But for > this issue, I see no need to allow fixing of individual properties on > trapping proxies.
There is a second reason, mentioned recently: we are implementing the DOM on top of proxies, and the current WebIDL spec has non-configurable properties induced in its normative ES bindings from the IDL syntax. We want to match the spec. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
