On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > There is already internal special case handling for every property that needs to be magical. So having non-delete-ability be part of this special case handling would seem natural. From your > Bonus, I think this will simplify things in our implementation of Array length vs. the ES5 Object.* APIs. it might even be net more natural than the current situation. > > /be > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
