On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Cameron McCormack <[email protected]> wrote:
> (BTW, Web IDL is not in Last Call right now, but it is close.) > > One question I forgot to ask, which is just my ignorance about the > details of the proxy proposal. Say you have a prototype chain like > this: > > [object a] → [object b] → [Object prototype object] → null > > a is a proxy object and b is a normal object. If you define a non- > configurable property on b, and you look up that property on a, can it > still be reported as non-configurable? > With the proxy proposal as it stands, no. I agree this is unfortunate. With proxies as augmented by < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:fixed_properties>, the answer is yes, by fixing it on proxy *a*. This is differently unfortunate, in that it is now an own property on proxy *a*. This is indeed an interestingly problematic case. In fact, it's probably the most problematic case identified so far -- congrats. Practically, do we know of a concrete case where it is a problem if proxy *a * reports that the property in question is configurable? If not, I suggest that the lesser evil is to mis-report it as a configurable inherited property rather than a non-configurable own property. YMMV. If this is a real problem, then we need to revisit < http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:fixed_properties> in that light. I can imagine introducing the idea of fixing an absence of a shadow, but I'd rather not. -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
