On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Perhaps the WebIDL spec should be revised in exactly the same we we're currently talking about revised arrays? > > /be > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
