On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
It's in Last Call, so time is short. Also, implementations do matter, and non-configurable is valued by implementations that want to optimize by assuming the slot in the object won't go away. If we make Array length, NodeList length, etc. be configurable, we implementors will need some *other* hidden attribute. /be
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
