Le 17/06/2011 01:23, Brendan Eich a écrit : > 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] >> <mailto:[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. I think that the deeper question we have to deal with now is the exact semantics of configurability when it comes to "non-natural objects" (array, host objects, proxies. Is there an official name for them in the spec?). My understanding is that Allen seems to question the applicability/application/ground of the spec on that ("Those restriction had no teeth and it isn't clear that they have had any impact.").
Currently, ES5 - 8.6.2 says: "The [[GetOwnProperty]] internal method of a host object must conform to the following invariants for each property of the host object: (...five bullets points...)" I'd like to ask a few questions on this part of the spec: Why are we expecting anything from host (all if including arrays?) objects at all? (I know this one is naive and a bit provocative, but I actually wonder) Why are we expecting host (all if including arrays?) objects to respect these particular invariants (this is actually 5 questions) and no other? David
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
